Julia Ward Howe PTA
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 237014853
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2024–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2024, Form 990-N 2023
- Location
- Pittsburgh, PA, USA
- Phone
- 0000000000
- Rating
- 61
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $36,220
- Expenses
- $31,928
- Assets
- $30,067
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
7 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Emily Balestreire (President)
- Greg Engle (Vice President)
- Roxana Colaiaco (Second Vice President)
People named in this filing
- Emily Balestreire (President)
- Greg Engle (Vice President)
- Roxana Colaiaco (Second Vice President)
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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The mission of the Julia Ward Howe Elementary Parent Teacher Association is to enhance the educational experience of all students by fostering collaboration between parents teachers and staff We aim to support academic programs provide resources for enrichment activities and promote family engagement in education ensuring that all efforts serve charitable and educational purposes for the benefit of the school community
What it reported doing in 2024
FamilyStudent Events -- The PTA hosts family-oriented events such as Family Reading Night Bingo Night Bite Around the World and the Talent Show to foster community engagement strengthen family-school connections and support student learning and cultural enrichment These activities provide opportunities for families to participate in educational and social experiences that promote literacy creativity and diversity while building a supportive school environment
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Other-operating. 88% 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
SUPPORTED - 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: 50
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 58
- Growth: NotEnoughData
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 47.9%; rating input score 48
- Program expense ratio: 54.3%; rating input score 54
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 11.8%; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.94; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: Limited
- Asset growth: Limited
Details
- Where the money goes: 47.9% of revenue deployed · 54.3% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 3 filed program accomplishments · $17K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
- Consistency: 8 of 9 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules
- 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.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 48/100.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 54/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part III transfer expenses within program total did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 45/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.