Texas Boll Weevil Eradication

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
742686783
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2012
Forms available
Form 990 2012
Location
Abilene, TX, USA
Phone
3256722846
Rating confidence
Limited

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$41,234,191
Expenses
$27,602,045
Assets
$105,929,433
Liabilities
$33,181,179

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2012. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

25 people listed

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2012. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The organization's purpose, as declared in subchapter d of Texas department of agriculture legislation, is the coordinated elimination of the cotton boll weevil from entire regions in Texas where cotton is grown.

What it reported doing in 2012

The Texas legislature created the Texas boll weevil eradication foundation in 1993 as a non-profit, quasi-governmental agency to eradicate the boll weevil and pink bollworm from Texas cotton fields. The foundation and it's operations are overseen by the Texas department of agriculture.the Texas boll weevil eradication board of directors meets quarterly and is composed of cotton growers elected from each of the 16 Texas eradication zones, as well as members appointed by the commission of agriculture. The Texas commissioner of agriculture oversees the foundation's operations, including holding zone referenda, approving grower assessment rates and making rules.the primary operational objective of the foundation is the eradication of boll weevil from Texas to help farmers increase yields, reduce costs and eliminate the use of pesticides. Eradication is achieved through weekly inspections of boll weevil traps and treatment of infested fields.for eradication purposes, Texas is divided into 16 geographic zones. In addition,4 geographic zones in New Mexico contract for services with the Texas boll weevil eradication foundation.the zones are in different stages of eradication ranging from suppressed , to functionally eradicated to totally eradicated.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 67% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
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

- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Accountability: 91
  • Sustainability: 83
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • Program expense ratio: Limited
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • 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; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 33.1%; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.84; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.31; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.3%; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -13.2% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1.1% per year; rating input score 100; 34th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: 21 of 21 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $254K · 25 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed
  • Consistency: 12 of 12 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2010 to 2012
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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 — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 56/100.