The Arc of Texas

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
741342667
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2008
Location
Austin, TX, USA
Phone
5124546694
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Developmentally Disabled Centers

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,724,585
Expenses
$2,388,983
Assets
$6,098,675
Liabilities
$148,786

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

Leadership & pay

18 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • TERI HAWTHORNE (PRESIDENT)
  • VERONICA AYALA (PRESIDENT-ELECT)
  • ANNA GRIFFITH (TEXAS ADVOCATES' PRESIDENT)
  • JENNIFER MARTINEZ (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • JENNIFER MARTINEZ (CEO): $204,374 total reported compensation
  • KATHY PHAM (DIRECTOR, FINANCE & OPERAT): $138,506 total reported compensation
  • HALEY GREER (DIRECTOR, MASTER POOLED TR): $126,611 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The arc of Texas promotes, protects, and advocates for the human rights and self-determination of texans with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

What it reported doing in 2024

The arc of Texas master pooled trust provides financial security to all people with disabilities to improve the quality of life while providing resources for their ongoing supplemental needs. The arc of Texas offers trust beneficiaries and their families free information and referral services, training opportunities, special education consultation, and legislative information.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 72% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 99% 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. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 68
  • Transparency & Controls: 64
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 63
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 71.1%; rating input score 71
  • Program expense ratio: 82.9%; rating input score 83
  • Fundraising efficiency: $3.57 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 88.2%; 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: 53.3%; rating input score 53; 16th 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; 63rd 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: 12.3%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.55; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 19.7%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -4.9% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -5.6% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3.1% per year; rating input score 100; 25th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 71.1% of revenue deployed · 82.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $204K · 18 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $576K reported
  • Consistency: 33 of 35 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 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.
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 11/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 53/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 13/100.
  • 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.