Community Action Corporation of South Texas

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
741679824
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Kingsville, TX, USA
Phone
(361) 881-9900
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Service Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$66,422,097
Expenses
$64,923,507
Assets
$35,571,961
Liabilities
$12,548,161

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

Leadership & pay

22 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • 8 ANN AWALT (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • 1 VANDANA KAMAT (MEDICAL DIRECTOR): $336,281 total reported compensation
  • 2 Alliskair Ortiz Diaz (Pediatrician): $243,039 total reported compensation
  • 3 JOSE MENDEZ (DENTAL DIRECTOR): $219,177 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 provide comprehensive, high-quality, and accessible health care and support services to the communities of South Texas, with a special emphasis on the underserved and uninsured.

What it reported doing in 2024

LIHEAP and DOE assist with reducing energy costs for low income families by increasing the energy efficiency of their homes, while ensuring health and safety. CEAP is a utility assistance program designed to assist low income households in meeting their immediate energy needs. CSBG is a program designed to reduce poverty, revitalize low income communities, and empower low income families to become self-sufficient by providing educational, employment and emergency assistance. Clients served: 7,483

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 67% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
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 most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 82
  • Transparency & Controls: 56
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 38
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 90.7%; rating input score 91
  • Program expense ratio: 92.5%; rating input score 93
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 21st 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: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 2.3%; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.55; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.35; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.8%; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6.2% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.8% per year; rating input score 100; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 11.6% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 1 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 90.7% of revenue deployed · 92.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $60.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $336K · 22 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $2.7M reported
  • Consistency: 30 of 31 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 9 filed money-flow records
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 44/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 21/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 41/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 50/100.