Austin Voices for Education & Youth

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
743017284
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Austin, TX, USA
Phone
5124146822
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Youth Development Programs

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,680,198
Expenses
$3,357,758
Assets
$1,414,333
Liabilities
$100,568

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

People named in this filing

  • CHRYS DOUGHERTY (BOARD CHAIR)
  • BEVERLY HARRIS (BOARD VICE CHAIR)
  • ZACH PRICE (BOARD SECRETARY)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

Austin voices for education and youth creates community collaboration to strengthen families, support kids and improve schools. We believe our public schools can serve as powerful hubs for bringing neighborhoods, families and students together to achieve positive change.

What it reported doing in 2024

Family resource centers: the first family resource center was founded in 2007 to provide a school-based center to offer professional wraparound services to families in crisis. Currently, avey has seven family resource centers (burnet, dobie, martin, and webb middle schools, perez elementary school, and navarro early college and northeast early college high school). The frcs are a "one-stop shop" for families facing the challenges of poverty, offering the employment, housing, health, counseling, and basic needs assistance, with the goal of family stability and success. Each frc has a licensed bilingual social worker, and most of the frc have a full-time director. Avey's frcs have, over the past eighteen years helped campuses improve attendance and academic performance by helping students focus on needs at school

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 79% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 81% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 85
  • Transparency & Controls: 83
  • Accountability: 24
  • Sustainability: 25
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 86.6%; rating input score 87
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 86.7%; rating input score 87; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 87.5%; rating input score 87; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 57
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -25.3%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.42; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.07; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 13.2% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 14.7% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 25.1% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 86.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 7 board members independent · 4 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $2.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 20 of 22 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.

  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 5/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 14/100.
  • 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.