Austin Coming Together

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
450920919
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2014
Location
Chicago, IL, USA
Phone
7734178613
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fund Raising and/or Fund Distribution

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,397,878
Expenses
$3,097,044
Assets
$3,352,751
Liabilities
$762,356

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Darnell Shields (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Darnell Shields (Executive Director): $279,589 total reported compensation
  • Deirdre Bates (Director of Operations): $127,414 total reported compensation
  • Andrew Born (Sr. Director of Community Impact): $108,128 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To increase the collective impact of our member organization on improving education economic development outcomes within the Austin Community.

What it reported doing in 2024

Austin Coming Together's two main programs in 2025 were 1) the Austin Community Hub, 2) Austin Forward Together Plan Implementation. Through the Austin Community Hub, staff directly assisted low- and moderate-income Austin residents access a variety of community resources and services, such as job training programs, legal services, financial counseling, emergency food assistance, and youth development programs. Through the Austin Forward Together Plan Implementation, staff supported community action, including organizational collaborations to increase access to healthy food, improve public safety and decrease gun violence, and create pathways to living wage work for unemployed and underemployed neighborhood residents.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 99% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 66% for direct work, and 34% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 65
  • Transparency & Controls: 59
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 47
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 67%; rating input score 67
  • Program expense ratio: 73.5%; rating input score 73
  • Fundraising efficiency: $7.91 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 88.2%; rating input score 88; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 39.7%; rating input score 40; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • 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: 8.9%; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.08; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.23; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 16.6%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 29.3% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 21.3% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 21.1% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 67% of revenue deployed · 73.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $280K · 14 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 35 of 37 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2018 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 10 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 7 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.

  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 40/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 30/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 40/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 16/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 41/100.