Rural Taylor County Aging Services

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
751920195
IRS 990 coverage
2025–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Tye, TX, USA
Phone
3256952372
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Senior Centers

Reported finances

Revenue
$282,084
Expenses
$282,057
Assets
$40,078
Liabilities
$40,078

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Gayla Beaird (President)
  • Fred Foss (Vice-President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Alisia Robles (Kitchen Cook): $24,354 total reported compensation
  • Della McElreath (Coordinator): $24,191 total reported compensation
  • Robin Casper (Kitchen Cook): $22,963 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

MISSION STATEMENT: To provide hot nutritionally balanced meals to eligible disabled and or elderly individuals as scheduled.

What it reported doing in 2025

We are Rural Taylor County Aging Serv. We serve the elderly and disabled in rural Taylor County. We cook and deliver a hot lunch Monday through Friday to approximately 150 people. In that we also have 2 Community Centers where some of our clients come in and eat. When we deliver the meals to our clients we are also able to visually check on them. We can make sure they are not in need of any other assistance.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Expenses are high relative to revenue and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 89
  • Transparency & Controls: 63
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 20
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

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

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 70%; rating input score 70; 0th 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 0%; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.14; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 38.8%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

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

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $295K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $24K · 13 people listed
  • Consistency: 36 of 40 current checks pass · 4 findings to review
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 35/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 9/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Occupancy column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Series program expenses within total did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 3/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 7/100.