The Onestar Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
200166368
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Austin, TX, USA
Phone
5122872000
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community Service Clubs

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,248,420
Expenses
$3,143,380
Assets
$1,711,726
Liabilities
$153,792

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

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CHRISTOPHER BUGBEE (PRESIDENT/CE)

Highest reported compensation

  • CHRISTOPHER BUGBEE (PRESIDENT/CE): $265,369 total reported compensation
  • JACLYN KOLAR (DIR OF NATIO): $147,443 total reported compensation
  • MILLICENT BOYKIN (DIR OF ST WI): $134,697 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Onestar strengthens Texas communities by creating pathways for individuals and organizations to engage, connect, and accelerate their impact.

What it reported doing in 2024

Volunteerism: to reduce the obstacles that faith and community-based groups face in partnering with government, to play a lead role in establishing collaborations and partnerships between government, faith and community- based groups, to coordinate research and policy efforts to measure the impact of these partnerships in serving texans in need, to train volunteer managers, and to recognize and award individual volunteer efforts.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 86% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 92% 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. Expenses are high relative to revenue and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 64
  • Transparency & Controls: 83
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 35
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 60.4%; rating input score 60
  • Program expense ratio: 62.6%; rating input score 63
  • Fundraising efficiency: $70.98 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd 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: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 3.2%; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.54; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.09; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 21.1%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.3% per year; rating input score 100; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.9% per year; rating input score 100; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.6% per year; rating input score 100; 38th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 60.4% of revenue deployed · 62.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $265K · 16 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 32 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
  • 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.
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 45/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 19/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 11/100.