Newark Teachers Association
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 941685879
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2018–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2017
- Location
- Union City, CA, USA
- Phone
- 5104413074
- Rating
- 54
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $262,401
- Expenses
- $288,407
- Assets
- $174,188
- Liabilities
- $21
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
2 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Cheri Villa (President)
- Julius Chapman (Vice President)
People named in this filing
- Cheri Villa (President)
- Julius Chapman (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. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The mission of the Newark Teachers Association is:1. To represent its members in their relations with their employer, and to be the exclusive representative of appropriate units of school employees in all matters relating to employment conditions and employer-employee relations including, but not limited to, wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment;2. To form a representative body capable of developing group opinion on professional matters to speak with authority for unit members;3. To provide an opportunity for continuous study and action on problems of the profession; 4. To provide a means of representation for its diverse membership;5. To promote professional attitudes and ethical conduct among members;6. To encourage cooperation and communication between the profession and the community; and7. To foster good fellowship among members.
What it reported doing in 2024
Representation of association members in all matters relating to employment conditions, including, but not limited to, wages, benefits, and other terms of employment.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 100% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- 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: 19
- Transparency & Controls: 90
- Accountability: 64
- Sustainability: 34
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 22%; rating input score 22
- Program expense ratio: 20%; rating input score 20
- 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 1 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 14
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
- Audit committee oversight: Fail
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -9.9%; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.6; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 35.2% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 8.5% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 2.1% per year; rating input score 100; 34th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 22% of revenue deployed · 20% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 2 of 2 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 2 people listed
- Consistency: 15 of 15 current checks pass
- Schedules: 1 filed schedules
- Filing history: 7 filing years from 2018 to 2024
- 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.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 22/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 20/100.
- High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 7 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 22/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 28/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 59/100.