Texas Tech Alumni Association
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 756036607
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
- Location
- Lubbock, TX, USA
- Phone
- 8067423641
- Rating
- 64
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Standard
- Sector
- Alumni Associations
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $4,543,294
- Expenses
- $4,504,272
- Assets
- $19,102,602
- Liabilities
- $1,130,457
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
41 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- CURT LANGFORD (PRESIDENT & CEO)
- JIM DOUGLASS (VICE PRESIDENT - DEVELOPME)
- KRISTINA BUTLER (VICE PRESIDENT - MARKETING)
- CHRIS SNEAD (VICE PRESIDENT - OPERATION)
Highest reported compensation
- CURT LANGFORD (PRESIDENT & CEO): $240,119 total reported compensation
- KRISTINA BUTLER (VICE PRESIDENT - MARKETING): $127,739 total reported compensation
- DAVID LOW (CFO): $125,653 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The organization cultivates loyalty, tradition, service, and lifelong relationships. Supporting and assisting in the development and increasing of the facilities of Texas tech university through (1) encourage & establish scholarships, (2) engage in the advancement of higher education through research and other literary and scientific undertakings and broader education opportunities, (3) award alumni for outstanding work in promoting the welfare of the university, (4) engage in public relations on behalf of the university, (5) assist in keeping records and statistics on graduates and former students of the university, (6) publish an alumni magazine, (7) support local alumni groups or other related organizations or faculty, and (8) to encourage donations to the university.
What it reported doing in 2024
University support projects - provide funds to support the ongoing projects of the university or to support key areas of importance of the university. (examples include faculty awards, academic recruitment, athletics, etc.)
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 92% 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
SUPPORTED - 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: 52
- Transparency & Controls: 72
- Accountability: 82
- Sustainability: 51
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 56.5%; rating input score 57
- Program expense ratio: 54.9%; rating input score 55
- Fundraising efficiency: $4.56 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: Yes; rating input score 100
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 5 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 56
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Fail
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 0.9%; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.24; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.06; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 16.4%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -0.7% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 3.8% per year; rating input score 100; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 4% per year; rating input score 100; 29th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 56.5% of revenue deployed · 54.9% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 36 of 36 board members independent · 5 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $2.5M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $240K · 41 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 32 of 32 current checks pass
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes executive pay
- Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 3 filed related-organization links
- 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.
- Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 57/100.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 55/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 15/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 9 not reported.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 37/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 16/100.