Cyber Threat Alliance
Legal name: Cyber Threat Alliance Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 815119067
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2017–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Arlington, Virginia, United States
- Phone
- 5713847924
- Rating
- 70
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Professional Societies, Associations
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $3,074,012
- Expenses
- $3,116,761
- Assets
- $1,060,517
- Liabilities
- $479,350
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
14 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- JOE MICHAEL DANIEL (PRESIDENT/CEO)
Highest reported compensation
- JOE MICHAEL DANIEL (PRESIDENT/CEO): $457,869 total reported compensation
- JEANNETTE JARVIS (CHIEF RECRUITMENT & MARKETING OFFICER): $323,745 total reported compensation
- ERIC WINTERS (LEAD TEST ENGINEER): $189,175 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
CTA's Mission is to improve the overall cybersecurity of the global digital ecosystem. We enable our members to share high-quality cyber threat information at both human and machine speed; distribute critical defensive information and threat reports; and work in a trusted community.
What it reported doing in 2024
The membership organization focuses on cybersecurity providers with 32 members and actively growing to include cybersecurity companies from around the world.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Membership-supported. 89% of the money available for current operations came from membership dues.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and program spending has declined or grown slowly.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 70
- Transparency & Controls: 79
- Accountability: 84
- Sustainability: 19
- Growth: 20
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 76.3%; rating input score 76
- Program expense ratio: 75.1%; rating input score 75
- Fundraising efficiency: $7.4 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
- Compensation committee: Pass
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Pass
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Missing
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 88.9%; rating input score 89; 20th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
- 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: Fail
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -1.4%; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.34; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.45; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 47.1%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -0.5% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -2.1% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 1% per year; rating input score 100; 16th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: Mission, programs, and operating context captured from the official website.
- Where the money goes: 76.3% of revenue deployed · 75.1% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 8 of 9 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.3M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $458K · 14 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $482K reported
- Consistency: 30 of 30 current checks pass
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
- Filing history: 7 filing years from 2017 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 6 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.
- 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: Fundraising efficiency scored 28/100.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 28/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 11/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 1/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 24/100.