Actionable Insights Forum
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 813005993
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2019–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2018, Form 990-N 2017
- Location
- Carlsbad, CA, USA
- Phone
- 7606076988
- Rating
- 43
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Business and Industry
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,466,745
- Expenses
- $1,561,005
- Assets
- $344,009
- Liabilities
- $248,980
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
8 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- MARK WHATLEY (President)
Highest reported compensation
- MARK WHATLEY (President): $174,000 total reported compensation
- SETH HARRISON (EXEC DIRECTOR): $66,054 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Actionable insights preserves the health of the restoration ecosystem by equipping its membership of restorers, and property insurance professionals with the training, tools, and standards according to the demands of a rapidly evolving industry.
What it reported doing in 2025
Actionable experienced a building year. Membership revenues were down and Actionable has been adding new membership at the same rate we have been losing them due to churn. The membership resources team is striving to deliver a stickier membership offering. Actionable is poised for a better 2026 and remains excited about 2027. The broader property insurance ecosystem is sick thanks to legislation akin to insurance bill 103 (1987). Actionable is weathering the storm and once things return to normalcy, Actionable is poised to grow. That said, Actionable was hugely impactful in helping reduce claims friction within the Xactimate centric estimating environment so that is work to be proud of.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 97% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program 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
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: 0
- Transparency & Controls: 77
- Accountability: 78
- Sustainability: 18
- Growth: 60
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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
- Compensation committee: Missing
- 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: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- 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: -6.4%; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.22; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.72; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 4.2%; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: 23.9% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 32.8% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 6 of 7 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
- Leadership: top reported pay $174K · 8 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $174K reported
- Consistency: 12 of 13 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay
- Filing history: 7 filing years from 2019 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 2 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.
- Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.
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.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 17/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 11/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 8/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 51/100.