Louisiana Association of School Business Officials

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
721033959
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Kelly, LA, USA
Phone
3372214486
Rating
45
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$248,970
Expenses
$266,965
Assets
$183,643
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

17 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Rodney Wilson (President)
  • Chastity Himel (President)
  • Deloris Walker (President-Elect)

People named in this filing

  • Rodney Wilson (President)
  • Chastity Himel (President)
  • Deloris Walker (President-Elect)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

The Louisiana association for school business officials (lasbo) is a non-profit professional association of school administrators whose primary skills and services are in the business and operations functions of the schools. We promote excellence and professional ethical standards in the practice of public school business finance by educating and training our membership in the most efficient and economic methods of conducting business affairs, for the benefit of the children of Louisiana.

What it reported doing in 2024

Annual spring conference- 3 day event that offers approximately 16 hours of professional development opportunities for all school district business officials on topics of current interest related to the management of district finances. Average attendance is 500 annually. The conference is announced via brochures sent to all districts, email notifications, and on the lasba website. The conference is the main mechanism used by the organization to disseminate legislative changes affecting school districts; federal grand guidelines; payroll regulations; state purchasing policies and procedures; fiscal reporting requirements, etc. Additionally, courses are offered in leadership, management, and professional ethics.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 39
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 19th 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: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -7.2%; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.69; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -1.5% per year; rating input score 0; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.9% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3.3% per year; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 17 of 17 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 17 people listed
  • Consistency: 8 of 9 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2015 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 26/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 31/100.