College Language Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
222769408
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2024
Location
Stone Mountain, GA, USA
Phone
2283426116
Rating
36
Verdict
REVIEW
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Humanities Organizations

Reported finances

Revenue
$146,007
Expenses
$209,005
Assets
$102,061
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Jervette Ward (President)
  • Janaka Lewis (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Constance Bailey (Treasurer)
  • Gregory Marcus (Technology Manager)
  • Niketa Reed (Convention Manager)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The College Language Association CLA is organized exclusively for the literary educational and charitable purposes of advancement of education and eliminating prejudice and discrimination CLA promotes and cultivates the study of languages and literatures to improve higher education experiences for students and teachers at colleges and universities across the world Our annual Convention and peer-reviewed academic journal CLAJ support our commitments to literary excellence inclusivity and advocacy for the historically marginalized

What it reported doing in 2024

0

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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. 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: 82
  • Sustainability: 23
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -43.1%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.49; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 10.8%; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 27.1% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -14.1% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 13 people listed
  • Consistency: 8 of 9 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 12 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.

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.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part III transfer expenses within program total did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 2/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 37/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 20/100.