Children's Advocacy Centers of Texas (CACTX)

Legal name: Children's Advocacy Centers of Texas Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
752581804
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Official website data refreshed
Aug 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Austin, Texas, US
Phone
512-258-9920
Rating
86
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Child Abuse, Prevention

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$85,528,759
Expenses
$85,363,891
Assets
$29,755,374
Liabilities
$15,690,482

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

Leadership & pay

29 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MICHAEL KEENER (PRESIDENT)
  • TOM FORBES (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • LAURA SQUIERS (PRESIDENT ELECT)
  • JOY LYNN HUGHES (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)

Highest reported compensation

  • JOY LYNN HUGHES (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER): $413,937 total reported compensation
  • CATHERINE BASS (CHIEF STRATEGY OFFICER & EXEC VP): $266,426 total reported compensation
  • NATASHA KING (CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER): $264,035 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 protect childhood in Texas by leading the fight against child sexual abuse, stewarding a statewide network of children's advocacy centers, and providing justice, healing, and prevention services for children and families.

What it reported doing in 2024

Made payments to 70 local children's advocacy centers throughout Texas.no. Of child victims served by cacs: 62,785children interviewed onsite: 40,109children receiving medical exams on site: 3,288children receiving medical exams off site: 5,052children receiving mental health services: 25,138services included forensic interviews, medical exams, mental health services, case management and victim support, participation in investigation and prosecution of crimes against children, particularly child sexual assault.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 99% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 91% of its reported program spending out as 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. Expenses are high relative to revenue and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 96
  • Transparency & Controls: 72
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 27
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 97.3%; rating input score 97
  • Program expense ratio: 97.1%; rating input score 97
  • Fundraising efficiency: $235.75 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 87.5%; 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: 88.8%; rating input score 89; 21st 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; 77th 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: 0.2%; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.35; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.53; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.9%; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 12.4% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 13.8% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.5% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 4 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 97.3% of revenue deployed · 97.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 17 of 17 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $82.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $414K · 29 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $444K reported
  • Consistency: 30 of 32 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 82 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 71 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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 32/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 12/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 34/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 39/100.