Richele Sherman Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
332407559
IRS 990 coverage
2025–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Lubbock, TX, USA
Phone
8065898023
Rating
64
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fund Raising and/or Fund Distribution

Reported finances

Revenue
$28,595
Expenses
$26,850
Assets
$1,745
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

1 person listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SAMUEL SHERMAN (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • SAMUEL SHERMAN (PRESIDENT)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Richele Sherman Foundations purpose is to award income replacement grants to individuals so that their family can continue to pay for everyday expenses while caring for ill family members.

What it reported doing in 2025

Operating expenses

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 86
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Accountability: 12
  • Sustainability: 45
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 93.9%; rating input score 94
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 6.1%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.06; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: 93.9% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 3 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $27K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 1 people listed
  • Consistency: 13 of 14 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
  • People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 9/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 58/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 58/100.