Community Garden Initiative of Central Texas
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 263124492
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2012–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2025
- Location
- Austin, TX, USA
- Phone
- 5124456670
- Rating
- 78
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Botanical, Horticultural, and Landscape Services
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $76,724
- Expenses
- $63,100
- Assets
- $176,247
- Liabilities
- $906
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
11 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Iris Bachman (President Jan - May)
- Elaine Dill (President June - Dec)
- Marsha Riti (Vice-President Jan - May)
- Lauren Ames (Vice President Jun - Dec)
People named in this filing
- Iris Bachman (President Jan - May)
- Elaine Dill (President June - Dec)
- Marsha Riti (Vice-President Jan - May)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Educational and charitable non-profit community garden
What it reported doing in 2025
Provided approximately 360 members of the community with 250 garden spaces with access to roads, water, and soil amendments. Gardeners worked 3,564 community service hours for this purpose. Educational tours of the garden are given to demonstrate techniques in organic gardening and a test garden is maintained to develop recommendations for varieties suitable for the local area. Also provided garden space for 14 junior gardeners
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 75% for direct work, and 25% for grants.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Liabilities are high compared with assets and reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 74
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 64
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 69.5%; rating input score 69
- Program expense ratio: 81.9%; rating input score 82
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 17.8%; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.79; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 7.1% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 1.8% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 3.7% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 69.5% of revenue deployed · 81.9% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 3 filed program accomplishments · $52K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 11 people listed
- Consistency: 9 of 9 current checks pass
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules
- Filing history: 14 filing years from 2012 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- 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 — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 27/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.