Texas Southern University Foundatio

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
741620415
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Houston, TX, USA
Phone
7133134205
Rating
85
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
University or Technological Institute

Reported finances

Revenue
$15,091,052
Expenses
$16,699,504
Assets
$25,968,591
Liabilities
$2,725,294

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

Leadership & pay

19 people listed

People named in this filing

  • DR FRAZIER WILSON (CHAIRMAN)
  • DR MELANIE JOHNSON (VICE CHAIRMA)
  • MICHAEL WILLIAMS (TREASURER)

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 foundation's purpose is to aid in the advancement of Texas southern university's objectives and purposes, especially in the areas of research capabilities, supporting community engagements, and students scholarships.

What it reported doing in 2024

Texas southern university foundation receives and administers private grants that enhance the research capabilities of different university programs. For the filing period, there were outstanding research results that were produced by tsu bullard center for environmental justice and tsu center for justice research. In addition, the center for justice research is a research center devoted to data-driven solutions for an equitable criminal justice system. The center provides a culturally responsive research approach to mass incarceration and criminal justice reform. Its mission is to reduce mass incarceration through targeted, culturally-responsive, evidence-supported solutions and strategic engagements. The center's researchers turn data into solutions. Houston, Texas, has the third largest criminal justice system in america, giving our researchers opportunities to investigate problems and solutions to the complexities of criminal justice reform. From initial contact to re-entry into society, the center for justice research advocates for reform in culturally sensitive and approachable solutions. Since 2018, the center has worked to change the culture of the criminal justice system with research and collaborative engagements, supporting community-based policies and partnering with stakeholders.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 81% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 54% for direct work, and 46% for grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 90
  • Transparency & Controls: 89
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 39
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 95.2%; rating input score 95
  • Program expense ratio: 85.8%; rating input score 86
  • Fundraising efficiency: $75.73 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -10.7%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.56; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.1; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 20.9% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 19.5% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 20.7% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 95.2% of revenue deployed · 85.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 19 of 19 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $14.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 19 people listed
  • Consistency: 23 of 24 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 9/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D land buildings reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 52/100.