Angelina Higher Education Authority Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
200115078
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2016–2017
Forms available
Form 990 2015, Form 990-EZ 2017, Form 990-N 2011
Location
Waco, TX, USA
Phone
2547530915
Rating
60
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Scholarships, Student Financial Aid Services, Awards

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$31,167
Expenses
$4,424
Assets
$214,929
Liabilities
$8,413

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MURRAY WATSON (PRESIDENT)
  • THOMAS BEN LITLE (VICE PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • CLAUDE ERVIN (DIRECTOR)
  • BOB CHAMBERs (VICE CHAIRMAN)
  • PETER KULTGEN (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-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Angelina higher education authority (ahea) is a holder of private college student loans under the federal family education loan program (ffelp). Ahea's mission is to make education a reality by supporting programs and initiatives to finance educational opportunities. Ahea's loans primarily consist of loans created to provide 'gap' funding for student education.

What it reported doing in 2017

Angelina higher education authority held 92 loans totaling over $197,000. These loans consist totally of private loans funded with ahea funds.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 85% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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 revenue comfortably covers expenses. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 46
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 85
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 14.1%; rating input score 14
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 85.8%; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 48.58; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.04; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -88.1% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -6.6% per year; rating input score 0; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -23.2% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 14.1% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $4K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 13 people listed
  • Consistency: 8 of 8 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2016 to 2017
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Related organizations: 26 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 14/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 30/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.