Community Associations Institute (CAI)

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
237392984
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Falls Church, VA, USA
Phone
7039709220
Rating confidence
Limited

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$19,898,142
Expenses
$19,438,772
Assets
$19,105,704
Liabilities
$10,196,146

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

Leadership & pay

25 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MELISSA RAMSEY CMCA AMS LSM PCAM (PRESIDENT)
  • MATT D OBER ESQ (PRESIDENT-ELECT)
  • JEEVAN J D'MELLO CMCA AMS LSM PC (IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT)
  • THOMAS SKIBA (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)
  • MATTHEW GREEN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CAMICB)

Highest reported compensation

  • THOMAS SKIBA (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER): $582,129 total reported compensation
  • DAWN BAUMAN (CHIEF STRATEGY OFFICER): $339,237 total reported compensation
  • BRUCE TOWNSEND (CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER): $269,180 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To inspire professionalism, effective leadership, and responsible citizenship in community associations.

What it reported doing in 2024

Educational courses, seminars, workshops and conferences - cai offers educational programs, some of which lead to professional designations, to advance excellence in community governance and management. Community association managers need to understand insurance, law, leadership, governance, finance and communications so they can help their clients create and maintain strong, vibrant and effective communities. Cai's professional development management program offers a number of courses throughout the country to help industry professionals become more versed in community association management.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 96% 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

- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 35
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • Program expense ratio: Limited
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 6 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Pass
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 81%; rating input score 81; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 2.3%; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.98; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.53; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 12.5%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 3.8% per year; rating input score 100; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.5% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 2 operating locations identified
  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $582K · 25 people listed · 6 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $1.3M reported
  • Consistency: 12 of 13 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 12 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.
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 43/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 35/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 13/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 26/100.