United Cybersecurity Alliance Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
853047585
IRS 990 coverage
2024–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2023, Form 990-N 2021
Location
Roseville, CA, USA
Phone
8004215771
Rating
55
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Public, Society Benefit N.E.C.

Reported finances

Revenue
$643,261
Expenses
$265,792
Assets
$386,788
Liabilities
$9,319

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

Leadership & pay

2 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CARMEN MARSH (CEO)

People named in this filing

  • PAULA DUBE (CFO)
  • CARMEN MARSH (CEO)

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

We provide cybersecurity educational programs for career development and job placement

What it reported doing in 2024

Craig newmark philanthropies grant enabled 50 students to take part in our 100 women in 100 days cybersecurity career accellerator which upskills women for jobs in cybersecurity. We have completed our 5th cybersecurity women of the year awards 2023 global nominees from 54 countries. The awards highlight the incredible and accomplished cybersecurity women professionals. Through awards we are creating role models to inspire more women to join the cybersecurity careers and increase gender gap in the cybersecurity field we have expanded our reach to cswy japan awards in 2023, as well as in scotland. We have completed ally of the year awards 2023 at rsa conference in san francisco to awards allies supporter for women in technology. The categories included educator, media, investor, program, philanthropy, company and male ally of the year. We have successfully maintained key partnerships with sierra college, sacramento state university, circadence, comptia and other educational institutions to provide our students with the best of class learning and upskilling opportunities. Our articles related to different cybersecurity topics were published in 5 different magazines including a women in technology spotlight in comstock magazine.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 94% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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 revenue comfortably covers expenses. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and a relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 58
  • Transparency & Controls: 84
  • Accountability: 0
  • Sustainability: 77
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 35.7%; rating input score 36
  • Program expense ratio: 86.4%; rating input score 86
  • Fundraising efficiency: $58.51 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: Limited
  • Governance controls: 0 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 58.7%; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.46; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 77.8% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 84.8% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 35.7% of revenue deployed · 86.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 2 people listed
  • Consistency: 16 of 17 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 6 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 36/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 55/100.