Indoor Tanning Association Inc C/o John C Overstreet

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
043477165
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2017
Forms available
Form 990 2017
Location
Mclean, VA, USA
Phone
7033625062
Rating
49
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Professional Societies, Associations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$50,413
Expenses
$127,630
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

People named in this filing

  • GENE CZAKO (DIRECTOR)
  • TODD EARNHART (DIRECTOR)
  • GREG HENSON (DIRECTOR)

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

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To promote the freedom of individuals to acquire a suntan, via natural or artificial light. Through the leadership efforts of our members, who are professionals from every sector of the indoor tanning industry, ita seeks to work with federal and state governments to ensure that this freedom is not restricted. Ita also strives to strengthen and advance our position through research and education efforts and by partnering with other organizations whose efforts further ita's mission.

What it reported doing in 2017

Industry relations - ita develops and disseminates positive information about the industry to the media and public. Ita also supports the ultraviolet light research and educational foundation's research projects that increase public awareness of the biological effects of ultraviolet light.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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

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: 25
  • Transparency & Controls: 74
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 14
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 35.6%; rating input score 36
  • Program expense ratio: 14.1%; rating input score 14
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: No; rating input score 0
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 57
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -153.2%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -24.2% per year; rating input score 0; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -34.1% per year; rating input score 0; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -16.5% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 35.6% of revenue deployed · 14.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 4 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $18K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 14 of 15 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2013 to 2017
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 36/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 14/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Major donor itemization scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 13/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 2/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.