Texas Association of School Personnel Administrators

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
742626352
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Austin, TX, USA
Phone
5124949353
Rating
52
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$847,758
Expenses
$793,474
Assets
$754,835
Liabilities
$461,024

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JOHJANIA NAJERA (PRESIDENT)
  • CHRIS BAILEY (PRESIDENT ELECT)
  • CRAIG LAHRMAN (1ST VICE PRESIDENT)
  • BEN MUIR (2ND VICE PRESIDENT)
  • KIMBERLY RICH (IMMED PAST PRESIDENT)
  • CHANDELLE CRANE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • CHANDELLE CRANE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $100,790 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The association is a professional association that assists its members by providing the tools, strategies, and approaches necessary to support the human resources function in public schools across Texas.

What it reported doing in 2025

Taspa delivers relevent and timely information on the trends in the public school human resources profession. The association disseminates this information through multiple means, such as e-mail alerts, newsletters and special reports, annual state conferences, regional workshops, and the taspa website. A portion of the annual membership dues are used to fund scholarships for prospective teachers in their senior year in college. Additionally, dues support the operation of the association, publications, and other member services.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 98% 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: 100
  • Accountability: 84
  • 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 6.4%; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.95; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.61; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 12.7%; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -33.5% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.8% per year; rating input score 100; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 9.6% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $101K · 14 people listed
  • Consistency: 14 of 32 current checks pass · 18 findings to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2013 to 2025
  • 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 — 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.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 48/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 41/100.
  • 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 FeesForServicesLobbying 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 GrantsToDomesticIndividuals column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX InformationTechnology 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 Interest 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.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Travel column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 10/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 30/100.