Sheep and Goat Validation of Texas

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
474822677
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
San Angelo, TX, USA
Phone
3256577313
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Agricultural Programs

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$395,600
Expenses
$614,446
Assets
$485,676
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • MARSHALL EATON (DIRECTOR): $4,666 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The mission of the organization is to help enforce 4-h and ffa ownership and possession rules through a sheep & goat validation program. The organization manages the state-level sheep and goat validation program for youth livestock show participants in the state of Texas. The organization also offers support and resources for sheep and goat youth projects and provides education for county extension agents, agriculture science teachers, youth exhibitors, and parents participating in sheep and goat youth projects.

What it reported doing in 2024

The wool and mohair judging program provides an opportunity for youth to develop practical skills that can be used in their future careers. Through the program, 4-h members learn to determine the various grades, ranks, and categorizations of wool by assessing certain characteristics, such as quality, staple length, and clean fleece yield. These abilities are well suited for a career on a sheep ranching operation, within the wool industry, or in the agricultural teaching field. The program also provides youth an opportunity to compete and compare the skills they have gained with those of other members. Outstanding youth are provided recognition for their dedication and hard work. The sheep and goat validation of Texas carefully selects wool and then provides samples of wool fleeces so that participants can practice their wool and mohair judging skills. The organization also provides resources for county extension agents, 4-h coaches, and parents on new rules and processes pertaining to youth wool and mohair judging contests. In 2024, 350 youth from across the state of Texas participated in the wool and mohair judging program.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 100% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 45% for direct work, and 55% for grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 89
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 60
  • Sustainability: 26
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 99.3%; rating input score 99
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 88.9%; rating input score 89; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 98.6%; rating input score 99; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 14
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Limited
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -55.3%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.79; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0.8%; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 11.4% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.7% per year; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.8% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 99.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 14 board members independent · 1 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $610K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $5K · 14 people listed
  • Consistency: 12 of 13 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2016 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 filed related-organization links
  • 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: Governance controls: 5 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 5/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 35/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 37/100.