Imagine Austin Coalition Evolve Austin Advocates

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
820809930
IRS 990 coverage
2017–2017
Forms available
Form 990 2017
Location
Austin, TX, USA
Phone
5126322863
Rating
61
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Alliance/Advocacy

Reported finances

Revenue
$376,944
Expenses
$347,323
Assets
$40,589
Liabilities
$10,968

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Cid Galindo (President)

People named in this filing

  • Mateo Barnstone (Director)
  • Drew Scheberle (Director)
  • Emily Chemevert (Director)

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 2017. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Evolve Austin advocates for and champions the Imagine Austin comprehensive plan, crafted by the people of Austin to create a more affordable, mobile, and sustainable city.

What it reported doing in 2017

Evolve Austin knocked on almost 50,000 doors across the Austin metropolitan area and had over 10,000 conversations with residents in support of the Imagine Austin Comprehensive Plan. Evolve Austin worked with a coalition of over 50 volunteer technical experts to write dozens of white papers, produce land development models, and provide more than 300 individual recommendations to improve CodeNEXT, the rewrite of the City of Austin's Land Development Code. Evolve Austin provided technical expertise to policymakers across central Texas in support of the Imagine Austin Comprehensive Plan.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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 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: 92
  • Transparency & Controls: 75
  • Accountability: 0
  • Sustainability: 41
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 89.4%; rating input score 89
  • Program expense ratio: 97%; rating input score 97
  • Fundraising efficiency: $100.49 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: No; rating input score 0
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 0 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 7.9%; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.12; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.27; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: 89.4% of revenue deployed · 97% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 8 board members independent · 0 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $337K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 26 of 26 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Major donor itemization scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 7/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 21/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.