Texas & Southwestern Cattle Raisers' Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
751762849
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Fort Worth, TX, USA
Phone
8173328551
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Museum, Museum Activities

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$805,329
Expenses
$688,644
Assets
$11,557,999
Liabilities
$147,329

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

Leadership & pay

18 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JOHN BOSWELL (PRESIDENT)
  • PATRICIA MCCALL (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • KIT MONCRIEF (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • PATRICIA RILEY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • PATRICIA RILEY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $152,407 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 & southwestern cattle raisers' foundation (foundation) will build platforms to preserve the history and advance the future of the livestock industry in the southwest through cattle raisers museum exhibits, education initiatives and programming; to provide scholarship opportunities to inspire young people to pursue careers in agriculture; and to capture oral histories of the people who define the industry.

What it reported doing in 2024

Scholarship program - the scholarship fund is designed to advance the future of the livestock industry by investing in young people who are pursuing careers in the agriculture field. Scholarships are awarded to individuals entering accredited universities in Texas and Oklahoma and pursuing degrees within the agriculture field. In 2024, there were 46 scholarships provided.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 72% for direct work, and 28% 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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 54
  • Transparency & Controls: 76
  • Accountability: 96
  • Sustainability: 70
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 64.7%; rating input score 65
  • Program expense ratio: 39.9%; rating input score 40
  • Fundraising efficiency: $12.25 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • 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: 98.4%; rating input score 98; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 25th 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: Pass
    • 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: 14.5%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 16.78; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 22.1%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -9.3% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.5% per year; rating input score 100; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3.5% per year; rating input score 100; 32nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 64.7% of revenue deployed · 39.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 16 of 17 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $275K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $152K · 18 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 33 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 40/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 44/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 12/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.