Ithaca Teachers Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
222305956
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2023
Location
Ithaca, NY, USA
Phone
6072728950
Rating
31
Verdict
REVIEW
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Professional Societies, Associations

Reported finances

Revenue
$447,838
Expenses
$446,227
Assets
$211,075
Liabilities
$59,236

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Kathryn Cernera (President)
  • David Isley (Vice President)
  • Arti Jewett (2nd Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Kathye Arrington (Office Manager): $38,373 total reported compensation
  • Kathryn Cernera (President): $6,188 total reported compensation
  • Aurora Rojer (Secretary): $1,406 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The organizations mission is to represent and support its members through collective bargaining contract enforcement grievance representation professional advocacy and related activities that promote the economic and professional interests of educators in the Ithaca City School District.

What it reported doing in 2024

The Ithaca Teachers Associations primary program service is representing educators employed by the Ithaca City School District through collective bargaining contract administration and enforcement. The organization negotiates collective bargaining agreements represents members in grievances and arbitration proceedings provides workplace advocacy and representation supports members in disciplinary matters and engages in professional and economic advocacy on behalf of approximately 600 educators. These activities are conducted pursuant to the New York State Taylor Law and the organizations bylaws.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 99% 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

REVIEW - The filed numbers largely add up. 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: 9
  • Sustainability: 31
  • Growth: 20

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: 0%; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 22
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 0.4%; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.47; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.28; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 10.6%; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -4% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 0.8% per year; rating input score 100; 28th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 5 board members independent · 2 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $38K · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 29 of 40 current checks pass · 11 findings to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2010 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.

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.
  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 40/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 23/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX AllOtherExpenses column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX BenefitsToMembers column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX CompCurrentOfficersDirectors column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX ConferencesMeetings column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX GrantsToDomesticOrgs column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Insurance column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX OfficeExpenses column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX PaymentsToAffiliates column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX PayrollTaxes column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Royalties column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 16/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 28/100.