Columbus Torah Academy
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 314428025
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2009
- Location
- Columbus, OH, United States
- Phone
- (614) 864-0299
- Rating
- 76
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Primary, Elementary Schools
- Affiliation
- Judaism
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $6,714,746
- Expenses
- $6,983,498
- Assets
- $14,148,340
- Liabilities
- $1,872,165
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
18 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- DR NAOMI MYERS (PRESIDENT)
- YONI ZOFAN (VICE PRESIDENT)
Highest reported compensation
- AVROHOM DRANDOFF (HEADMASTER): $179,547 total reported compensation
- NORMAN LEIST (CFO): $139,848 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Is to develop our students into educated, contributing, active, aware members of contemporary American and Jewish societies. To accomplish this mission, CTA is dedicated to: Provide a broad-based, high-quality, secular education, designed to impart the critical educational and learning skills that are necessary to meet the students’ future educational and/or vocational challenges. A college-preparatory curriculum is offered with learning center support. Provide a strong, comprehensive Jewish education, within a modern Orthodox Zionist framework, to inspire learning, living, and growing in Judaism as a life-long commitment. Our goals are for our students to make Torah values the center of their lives and to instill in them an attachment to and a sense of responsibility for the State of Israel and the Jewish People.
What it reported doing in 2024
Elementary and high school education grades kindergarten through twelfth grade.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 62% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 79% for direct work, and 21% for grants.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 78
- Transparency & Controls: 71
- Accountability: 84
- Sustainability: 42
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 84.2%; rating input score 84
- Program expense ratio: 80.4%; rating input score 80
- Fundraising efficiency: $12.2 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
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: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Other executive compensation review process: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -4%; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.03; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.13; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 4.6%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 5.9% per year; rating input score 100; 45th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 6.8% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 2.8% per year; rating input score 100; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 84.2% of revenue deployed · 80.4% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 16 of 16 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $5.6M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $180K · 18 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 31 of 31 current checks pass
- Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 2 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 44/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 22/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 53/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 57/100.