California Association of African American Superintendents & Admi

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
263944470
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2013, Form 990-N 2010
Location
Granada Hills, CA, USA
Phone
8182176310
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Education N.E.C.

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,209,804
Expenses
$3,617,046
Assets
$527,172
Liabilities
$59,837

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

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • DWIGHT BONDS (EXECUTIVE DI): $219,996 total reported compensation
  • AKB MEDIA (KEY EMPLOYEE): $180,578 total reported compensation
  • TEACHER POWER INC (KEY EMPLOYEE): $177,893 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 California association of african american superintendents and administrators (caaasa), a group of educational leaders, is committed to identifying and addressing critical issues in education through public policy relative to the status and performance of african american students in California. Caaasa is a professional developm, ent organization committed to improving educational outcomes for african american and other underserved students in California. Our purpose is to positively impact outcomes for k-16 students and their families.

What it reported doing in 2024

Profssional development summit highlighting evidence-based policies and practices. The summit includes training for superintendents, administrators, school board members, teachers, and others. Parent empowerment and youth leadership summits complement caaasa's primary summit each year. Caaasa also provides an aspiring superintendents academy program, an annual round-up of educational stakeholders, and regular "caaasa cares" direct service events.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 100% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 89
  • Transparency & Controls: 55
  • Accountability: 63
  • Sustainability: 15
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -12.7%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.15; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.11; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 16%; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 36.2% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 22.9% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 19.7% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 2 board members independent · 1 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $3.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $220K · 3 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 12 of 13 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2014 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 11/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Independent members within voting members did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 4/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 17/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 56/100.