Greater Albany Education Assn

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
931024022
IRS 990 coverage
2024–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2023, Form 990-N 2014
Location
Albany, OR, USA
Rating
50
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$223,459
Expenses
$202,597
Assets
$286,099
Liabilities
$239,000

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Dana Lovejoy (President)
  • Max Nazarian (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Dana Lovejoy (President): $6,000 total reported compensation
  • Max Nazarian (Vice President): $4,000 total reported compensation
  • Heidi Wetherell (Treasurer): $2,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Advocate for the rights, well-being, and professional growth of education employees while promoting high-quality, equitable public education for all students.

What it reported doing in 2024

The Association advanced its exempt purpose through collective bargaining and member representation activities during the fiscal year, including preparation for and participation in a lawful work stoppage to secure a fair collective bargaining agreement. The Association coordinated negotiations, member communications, community engagement, and advocacy efforts focused on securing competitive compensation, safe working conditions, and sustainable health benefits for certified educators. During the work stoppage, the Association administered strike-related support to eligible members to mitigate financial hardship and ensure continuity of representation. Financial assistance received from the parent organization was used to support strike benefits and related representational activities consistent with the Association's exempt purpose. These activities directly furthered the organization's mission to improve working conditions, protect member rights, and promote quality public education.

Operating model

Revenue model
Membership-supported. 69% of the money available for current operations came from membership dues.
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

MIXED - 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: 90
  • Accountability: 86
  • Sustainability: 47
  • 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 98.5%; rating input score 99; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 9.3%; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.41; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.84; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.9%; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 13.1% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 19.9% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 67 of 68 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $45K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $6K · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 11 of 12 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 8 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: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 59/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 50/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 6/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 31/100.