Austin College

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
750827409
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Sherman, TX, USA
Phone
903.813.2000
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
University or Technological Institute

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$85,686,369
Expenses
$93,201,469
Assets
$350,420,710
Liabilities
$42,298,704

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

Leadership & pay

41 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • STEVEN O'DAY (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • STEVEN O'DAY (PRESIDENT): $660,946 total reported compensation
  • DIANA NOLLER (DIRECTOR OF PA PROGRAM): $235,813 total reported compensation
  • J PERNELL JONES (VP FOR BUSINESS AFFAIRS/SECRETARY/TREASURER): $230,711 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Austin College prepares students for a life of leadership and service through a rigorous liberal arts education that emphasizes critical thinking, effective communication, and ethical engagement.

What it reported doing in 2024

Other program services: student services such as extra-curricular programming, health services, loan cancellation for students, operations and maintenance of facilities for instructional purposes as well as academic support facilities.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 82% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 49% for direct work, and 51% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 83
  • Transparency & Controls: 68
  • Accountability: 98
  • Sustainability: 43
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 93.8%; rating input score 94
  • Program expense ratio: 85.1%; rating input score 85
  • Fundraising efficiency: $4.6 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 95.2%; rating input score 95; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: No; rating input score 0

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 96.9%; rating input score 97; 52nd 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: -8.8%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.76; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.12; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.4%; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.4% per year; rating input score 100; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.8% per year; rating input score 100; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.8% per year; rating input score 100; 19th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 9 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 93.8% of revenue deployed · 85.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 31 of 32 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $79.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $661K · 41 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $9.9M reported
  • Consistency: 43 of 44 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 12 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, executive pay, and related organizations
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 10 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.

Key Signals

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

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 19/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 9/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 48/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.