Busacc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
320099085
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Houston, TX, USA
Phone
7138808168
Rating
51
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,788,552
Expenses
$2,176,418
Assets
$1,227,882
Liabilities
$95,475

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • AIDA ARAISSI (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • AIDA ARAISSI (PRESIDENT): $309,476 total reported compensation
  • DAVID L PHILLIPS (CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD): $63,863 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Busacc (dba the bilateral chamber) promotes u.s. Exports to various u.s. Trading partner countries abroad on a global basis through business & education advocacy programs and serves as an official contractor for the us trade and development agency (ustda).

What it reported doing in 2024

As a bilateral chamber, busacc organizes trade conferences as well as inbound and outbound trade missions to promote economic development and exports for u.s. Companies globally. Busacc serves as an official contractor for the ustda to lead the inbound trade missions from all parts of the world into the united states to promote u.s. Exports in regions of economic interests to the u.s. Our trade missions promote inbound investments into the u.s. And foster u.s. Exports in multiple sectors including infrastructure development, transportation, communications, petroleum industries, renewable energy, travel, tourism, health services, and various others.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and program spending has grown recently. 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: 40
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 49
  • Sustainability: 52
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 40.4%; rating input score 40
  • Program expense ratio: 52.4%; rating input score 52
  • Fundraising efficiency: $2.91 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings

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: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 60%; rating input score 60; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 22%; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.56; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.08; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 17.2%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2% per year; rating input score 100; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6% per year; rating input score 100; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.6% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 40.4% of revenue deployed · 52.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 5 board members independent · 3 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $309K · 5 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 24 of 24 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2016 to 2024
  • 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.
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 40/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 52/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 8/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 20/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 15/100.