California School Library Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
942433211
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Long Beach, CA, USA
Phone
8886558480
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$295,036
Expenses
$473,155
Assets
$178,247
Liabilities
$6,838

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Jennifer Zimney (President)
  • Sasha Kinney (Vice President)
  • Mia Gittlen (Vice President)
  • Nina Jackson (Vice President)
  • Jennifer Spellman (Vice President)
  • Heather Gruenthal (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Jennifer Zimney (President)
  • Aimee Korynta (Director)
  • Josie Andrews (Director)

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

California School Library Association advocates for fully-funded, fully-staffed school library programs and empowers its members to promote literacy, inclusivity, and equity for all California students through school libraries.

What it reported doing in 2024

CSLA develops leaders in the school library field through its annual conference, where members learn how to save their schools money in times of shrinking budgets. CSLA workshops and sessions provide time-saving, money-saving and innovative ideas that all teachers and students can use. Members learn from the workshops and sessions, and equally as important, from fellow teacher librarians whose expertise and experience in the field will enhance the members ability to serve teachers and students. The conference also provides members with innovative ideas, strategies andtechnology, learned at sessions and from colleagues. This serves the library users and helps members manage their time more efficiently.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 84% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 98% 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 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: 81
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 20
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 75.4%; rating input score 75
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 82.7%; rating input score 83; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -60.4%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.38; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.04; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 11.7% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.4% per year; rating input score 100; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -0.1% per year; rating input score 0; 24th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 75.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 705 of 705 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $357K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 13 people listed
  • Consistency: 23 of 24 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2013 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 4/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 19/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 35/100.