Affordable Central Texas Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
813188845
IRS 990 coverage
2017–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2016
Location
Austin, TX, USA
Phone
5122027997
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Management & Technical Assistance

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$938,991
Expenses
$1,281,340
Assets
$2,008,550
Liabilities
$681,082

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MONICA MEDINA (PRESIDENT AND CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • MONICA MEDINA (PRESIDENT AND CEO): $343,304 total reported compensation
  • DAVID STEINWEDELL (BOARD CHAIRMAN AND FOUNDER): $187,200 total reported compensation
  • MISSY SAEZ (ASSET MANAGER): $156,749 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Texas housing conservancy (txhc) is a nonprofit that preserves long-term affordability in multifamily housing for Texas' workforce by leveraging private capital without ongoing public subsidy.

What it reported doing in 2025

Through our Texas together program - which includes financial foundations, back to school, grocery giveaways, conservancy cupboards, and other community impact initiatives - we deliver year-round services across 17 properties, supporting over 4,000 residents with financial coaching, school supplies, food access, and neighborhood engagement.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 71% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 70
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 87
  • Sustainability: 20
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 86.1%; rating input score 86
  • Program expense ratio: 65.6%; rating input score 66
  • Fundraising efficiency: $1.66 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 77.8%; rating input score 78; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 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: 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: -36.5%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.57; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.34; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 64.9%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 8.9% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 17.7% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 16.5% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 86.1% of revenue deployed · 65.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 9 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $840K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $343K · 11 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 28 of 28 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2017 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 5/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 3/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 57/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 1/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 18/100.