Texas Rural Communities Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
751172307
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Buda, TX, USA
Phone
5123129029
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Rural Economic Development

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$306,717
Expenses
$488,353
Assets
$10,029,083
Liabilities
$8,638

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Lisa Smith (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Lisa Smith (Executive Director): $72,900 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Texas Rural Communities, Inc. (TRC) makes a long-term commitment to assisting rural communities, individuals, groups, and support organizations in creating, sustaining, and enabling self-sufficient, viable rural development enterprises that improve or maintain the quality of rural life through independent and cooperative ventures.

What it reported doing in 2024

Rural development loans loans are made to rural businesses in defined program areas that meet criteria established by the Board of Directors. Loans for the acquisition of farm and ranch real estate have been made independently by TRC to the agricultural producer and also in cooperation with the Farm Service Agency (FSA). In these participation loans, TRC funds approximately half of the borrower's loan and receives a first lien on the real estate, with the FSA funding the remaining loan and receiving a subordinate lien.

Operating model

Revenue model
Investment-supported. 73% of the money available for current operations came from recurring investment income.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 67% for direct work, and 33% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 58
  • Transparency & Controls: 72
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 39
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 74.1%; rating input score 74
  • Program expense ratio: 50%; rating input score 50
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 24.5%; rating input score 24; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -59.2%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 20.54; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 14.9%; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1.4% per year; rating input score 100; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -1.8% per year; rating input score 0; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.4% per year; rating input score 100; 35th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 74.1% of revenue deployed · 50% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $244K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $73K · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 28 of 30 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2011 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 50/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 24/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 4/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Fund balance restriction sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 24/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 57/100.