Information and Technology Educators Of
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 237112384
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2011–2019
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2019
- Location
- Roseville, MN, USA
- Phone
- 6517718672
- Rating
- 88
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Media, Communications Organizations
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $60,490
- Expenses
- $72,095
- Assets
- $31,565
- Liabilities
- $9,031
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2019. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
12 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- ASHLEY KROHN (CO PRESIDENT)
- DANA WOODS (CO PRESIDENT)
- MARIE HYDUKOVICH (PRESIDENT ELECT)
- SARA FLORIN (CO PAST PRESIDENT)
People named in this filing
- BRIAN CRETZMEYER (DIRECTOR)
- SALLY MAYS (DIRECTOR)
- TAMI WILKINS (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-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2019. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The information and technology educators of Minnesota provides leadership andservice by promoting professional growth, facilitating collaboration among itsmembers, establishing standards, and avocating for 21st century learners.
What it reported doing in 2019
Promoting professional growth of its members and leadership in the effective use of instructional technology through conferences and publications. In addition the organization promotes educational media and technology with other professional, national, state and community organizations.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 83% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 99% 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
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 100
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 27
- Growth: 80
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -19.2%; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.44; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.29; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 7.4% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 1.6% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -9.1% per year; rating input score 0; 19th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $72K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 12 people listed
- Consistency: 9 of 9 current checks pass
- Schedules: 2 filed schedules
- Filing history: 7 filing years from 2011 to 2019
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- 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.
Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 23/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 26/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 14/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.