Texas Association of School Adminstrators

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
741540525
IRS 990 coverage
2019–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Austin, TX, USA
Phone
5124776361
Rating
42
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$10,264,950
Expenses
$9,851,269
Assets
$9,316,735
Liabilities
$1,916,397

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

Leadership & pay

37 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CHRIS MORAN (PRESIDENT)
  • ROSSEVELT NIVENS (PRESIDENT ELECT)
  • JEANNIE MEZA-CHAVEZ (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • MARTHA SALAZAR-ZAMORA (PAST PRESIDENT)
  • KEVIN BROWN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • JULIA MCCREARY (ASSOCIATE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • AMY BENESKI (DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $388,212 total reported compensation
  • KEVIN BROWN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $352,835 total reported compensation
  • CHARLES DUPRE (DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $264,835 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Leadership training

What it reported doing in 2024

Tasa hosted a joint virtual convention with the Texas association of school boards in september. Both school organizations and school board members attended this annual convention. Continuing education credits are available for both board members and education professionals at multiple types of sessions. A variety of current topics of concern to school districts were covered such as school finance, accountability and redistricting. The event also included an exhibit of school architecture and trade show of school district vendors

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 90% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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: 66
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 41
  • 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 4%; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.95; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.21; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 17.6%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 7.8% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 16.3% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 31 of 31 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $388K · 37 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 13 of 26 current checks pass · 13 findings to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2019 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 50/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 34/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX CompCurrentOfficersDirectors column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX ConferencesMeetings column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX DepreciationDepletion column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesAccounting column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesOther column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Insurance column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Occupancy column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX OfficeExpenses column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX OtherEmployeeBenefits column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX OtherSalariesAndWages column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX PayrollTaxes column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX PensionPlanContributions column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 6/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 58/100.