The Computing Research Association Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
521622336
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2022342111
Rating
81
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$20,254,835
Expenses
$18,192,928
Assets
$13,816,404
Liabilities
$4,436,530

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

Leadership & pay

53 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • TRACY CAMP (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • TRACY CAMP (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $522,425 total reported compensation
  • PETER HARSHA (COO & GOV'T RELATIONS DIR. AND INTERIM DIRECTOR): $392,105 total reported compensation
  • MARY LOU MAHER (DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH COMMUNITY INITIATIVES): $298,321 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 specific purposes of the corporation include the following: a.) to consider and act on general problems regarding computer science and computer engineering research and graduate education; b.) to foster interaction between the university and non-university computer science engineering research communities; c.) to interact with and inform public and private groups about computing research and education.

What it reported doing in 2024

Nsf csgrad4us: the objective of the computer and information science and engineering (cise) graduate fellowships (nsf csgrad4us) is to increase the number of diverse, domestic graduate students pursuing research and innovation careers in the cise fields: computer science, computer engineering, or information science. The nsf csgrad4us mentoring program provides not only general graduate application advice and guidance, but also provides a missing larger context and network to students returning from the workforce. These goals are achieved through group mentoring sessions followed by individual coaching during the application and decision-making process and the first year in graduate school.total number of participants: 112

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 66% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 46% for direct work, and 54% for grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown and reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 68
  • Transparency & Controls: 87
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 46
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 74.1%; rating input score 74
  • Program expense ratio: 82.4%; rating input score 82
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 10.2%; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.76; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.32; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 14.5%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 13.7% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.8% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.1% per year; rating input score 100; 49th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 74.1% of revenue deployed · 82.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 43 of 43 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $15M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $522K · 53 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $387K reported
  • Consistency: 36 of 36 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 68 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 58 filed related-organization links
  • 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: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 27/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 9/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 44/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.