Chicago Principals & Administrators Association
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 360904090
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2016–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Chicago, IL, USA
- Phone
- 3122637767
- Rating
- 37
- Verdict
- REVIEW
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Education N.E.C.
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,771,350
- Expenses
- $1,926,830
- Assets
- $775,370
- Liabilities
- $234,705
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
13 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Troy LaRaviere (President)
Highest reported compensation
- Troy LaRaviere (President): $222,504 total reported compensation
- Kent Lau (Director of Operations): $133,790 total reported compensation
- Samantha Odyniec (Deputy General Counsel): $125,463 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 mission of the Chicago Principals & Administrators Association is to provide the educational and ethical leadership needed in local school communities and across the system to ensure that all students will attain the highest standards of achievement.
What it reported doing in 2024
CPAA provided the following services to its approximately 600 members during the fiscal year ended June 30, 2025: 1. Advocate on behalf of its members to specific issues affecting members. 2. Provide legal support to its members. 3. Advocate on behalf of its members in regard to compensation and benefits. 4. Provide professional development and network opportunities for its members. 5. Represent members regarding welfare issues (compensation and benefits), advise in professional matters (due process/legal issues) and provide leadership in local and statewide decision making and policy formation.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Other-operating. 99% of the money available for current operations came from other operating 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 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: 0
- Transparency & Controls: 60
- Accountability: 76
- Sustainability: 18
- 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 5 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 56
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -8.8%; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.4; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.3; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 25%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -18.9% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 16% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 29.9% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 10 of 11 board members independent · 5 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.5M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $223K · 13 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 12 of 13 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes executive pay
- Filing history: 9 filing years from 2016 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
- 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 9 not reported.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 18/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 19/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 10/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 24/100.