Texas Alliance of Black School Educators
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 760544171
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2018–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2016
- Location
- Houston, TX, USA
- Phone
- 9727551455
- Rating
- 70
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Professional Societies, Associations
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $489,480
- Expenses
- $740,492
- Assets
- $295,678
- Liabilities
- $208,669
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
10 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Dr Darwin Spiller (President)
Highest reported compensation
- Dr LaBotta Taylor (Executive Dir.): $16,880 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To enhance and facilitate the education of African American people; To develop the necessary structures through which African American educators can meet and share ideas and focus on the unique challenges faced by African American youth and adults; and To analyze and apply shared knowledge to the eradication of problems which stand as obstructions to quality education for African American children.
What it reported doing in 2024
In 2024-2025, the Texas Alliance of Black School Educators (TABSE) remained steadfast in its mission to enhance and ensure the education of African American students in Texas by empowering Black educators and leaders. TABSE hosted its Annual State Conference, drawing 478 attendees from across the state. The event delivered impactful professional development, equity-centered training, and opportunities for collaboration among educators, administrators, and policy advocates. Throughout the year, TABSE continued to drive educational equity by supporting student achievement, providing scholarships, and advancing culturally relevant practices in Texas schools. These efforts contributed to strengthening the pipeline of diverse educational leaders and improving outcomes for historically underserved communities.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 93% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 88% 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 most voting board members are independent. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 80
- Transparency & Controls: 53
- Accountability: 82
- Sustainability: 13
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 71.5%; rating input score 72
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 0%; rating input score 0; 19th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 4 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 57
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -51.3%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.4; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.71; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 2.3%; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 19.6% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 12.7% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 11.2% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 71.5% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 4 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $530K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $17K · 10 people listed
- Consistency: 23 of 25 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes grants
- Filing history: 2 filing years from 2018 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
- 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 — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 6 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 5/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 20/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 8/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 35/100.