Texas Architectural Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
746050437
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Austin, TX, USA
Phone
5124787386
Rating
63
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Scholarships, Student Financial Aid Services, Awards

Reported finances

Revenue
$580,466
Expenses
$128,052
Assets
$4,028,871
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Mike McGlone (President)
  • William Helm (Vice President)
  • Jason Puchot (TxA President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Jennifer Briggs (TxA EVP): $281,657 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The Foundation's purpose is to build inspiration and leadership to enhance and protect Texas' unique culture and environment for the benefit of future generations. The goals of the Foundation are: to expand and enhance architectural education; to promote responsible stewardship of the urban and rural Texas environments; to support community initiatives for good planning and design; and, to foster understanding of architecture's power to enhance our State and our lives.

What it reported doing in 2025

The goals of the Foundation are to expand and enhance architectural education; to promote responsible stewardship of the urban and rural Texas environments; to support community initiatives for good planning and design; and, to foster understanding of architecture's power to enhance our State and our lives. The Foundation primarily provides funds to meet these goals by awarding scholarships to undergraduate, graduate, or post-graduate students at the eight accredited departments or schools of architecture in Texas.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 47
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 68
  • Sustainability: 86
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 39%; rating input score 39
  • Program expense ratio: 76.4%; rating input score 76
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 90%; rating input score 90; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 77.9%; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 31.46; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 21.7%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.2% per year; rating input score 100; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.3% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.8% per year; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 39% of revenue deployed · 76.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 10 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $98K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $282K · 10 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 15 of 15 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 3 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 39/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 14/100.