Texas Association of Partners in Education

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
752310618
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2011–2012
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2012
Location
Austin, TX, USA
Phone
5124738377
Rating
55
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Parent/Teacher Group

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$124,821
Expenses
$132,012
Assets
$70,855

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2012. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

23 people listed

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2012. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

See schedule O

What it reported doing in 2012

The Texas Association of Partners in Education held two conferences in 2012: the first was held concurrently with the Texas Association of School Administrators Midwinter Conference in January, and included one day of educational sessions on creative partnerships, partnering for STEM education, finding community/business partners, the use of technology in partnership development, onsite mentoring programs, and other topics. The January conference included an Awards banquet for outstanding partnerships in the state of Texas. Fourteen partnerships received the Crystal Awards and thirteen received Gold Awards. 164 duplicated persons received services at this conference. In December, TAPE hosted a National Education Partnerships Conference in San Antonio, which included 2 full days of training, networking opportunities, keynote speakers, and exhibits focused on fundraising, school safety, partnerships, career ready/workforce training, special events, parent involvement, and mentoring. One hundred and twenty-three partnership professionals attended the December conference.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 87% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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. 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: 28
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Sustainability: 23
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 28.1%; rating input score 28
  • Program expense ratio: 26.6%; rating input score 27

Transparency & Controls

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

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -5.8%; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.54; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: Limited

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -88.6% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -34% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -13.3% per year; rating input score 0; 18th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 28.1% of revenue deployed · 26.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 4 filed program accomplishments · $35K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $55K · 23 people listed
  • Consistency: 8 of 8 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2011 to 2012
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 28/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 27/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 21/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 44/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.