The Austin Project

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
742634835
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2016
Forms available
Form 990 2016
Location
Austin, TX, USA
Phone
5124146825
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Job Training

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$269,641
Expenses
$305,198
Assets
$184,191
Liabilities
$33,398

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • William Steele (President)
  • Al Sarria (Past President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Donna Hagey (Executive Dir.): $68,358 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The Austin Project was organized for the primary purpose of mobilizing the public and private sectors of the community in the City of Austin (City) to reverse the decline of the disadvantaged neighborhoods throughout the City and to provide the citizens in these neighborhoods with resources to assist them into the mainstream of society.

What it reported doing in 2016

The Austin Project operates two Family Resource Centers (FRC) in Central and Southeast Austin located on middle school campuses that are part of the Austin Independent School District. The FRCs are school-based family friendly gathering places that engage parents and residents in community problem solving, coordination of events, and school partnerships. Each FRC has 2 licensed social workers that offer case management services in addition to significant outreach and parent leadership development. The FRCs promote healthy life styles by promoting and organizing Coordinated School Health teams, and increasing access to and utilization of physical activity and nutritious food. At the FRCs families are connected to family and youth resources and services, receive assistance with Medicaid and SNAP applications, and have access to employment services, health support, an emergency clothes closet, parent education courses, and other community and parent leadership opportunities. Each FRC serves families in the school feeder pattern, meaning families from the feeder elementary and high schools access services through the middle school FRCs. The Austin Project's FRCs provided services in 2016 to families with children in 43 public schools. In addition to providing campus-based social services, The Austin Project promotes the development of full service Community Schools locally, regionally and nationally by serving on local city, state, and national task forces and the National Community School Leadership Council.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 73% 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 - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 70
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 23
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 76.9%; rating input score 77
  • Program expense ratio: 67.7%; rating input score 68
  • Fundraising efficiency: $9.8 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 42; 42nd 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: 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: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -13.2%; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.6; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.18; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 22.4%; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -15.4% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -3.4% per year; rating input score 0; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -1.6% per year; rating input score 0; 30th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 76.9% of revenue deployed · 67.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $207K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $68K · 15 people listed
  • Consistency: 24 of 24 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2010 to 2016
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 42/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 18/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 31/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 17/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 27/100.