California Teachers Association Alhambra Teachers Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
951895340
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2019
Location
Alhambra, CA, USA
Phone
6262891933
Rating
27
Verdict
REVIEW
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,323,715
Expenses
$1,211,300
Assets
$979,906
Liabilities
$1,644

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • RALPH HERNANDEZ (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • RALPH HERNANDEZ (PRESIDENT): $158,694 total reported compensation
  • ALANA ACOSTA-MARTIN (VICE PRESIDE): $5,190 total reported compensation
  • TAMMY SCORCIA (BARGAINING C): $5,190 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 local's primary function includes representing members in matters related to employee-employer relations, including, but not limited to wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment and to protect and preserve the union as an institution in the performance of its legal and contractual obligations.

What it reported doing in 2024

To promote and foster goodwill and public support for the welfare and interest of this union and its members by actions including, but not limited to: organizing the unorganized, sponsoring activities that conserve the interests of this union and serve its membership, and providing donations to support labor friendly organizations and other organizations in our local community.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 92% 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

REVIEW - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue has grown recently. 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: 62
  • Accountability: 14
  • Sustainability: 50
  • 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: 84.6%; rating input score 85; 2nd 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: 87.9%; rating input score 88; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 8.3%; rating input score 8; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 22
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: 8.5%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.81; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 15.8%; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -44.7% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 20.3% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.8% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 1 of 12 board members independent · 2 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $159K · 13 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 12 of 15 current checks pass · 3 findings to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2016 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 13 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 8/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 58/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 36/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 21/100.