Association of Surfing Professionals
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 205551822
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2011–2012
- Forms available
- Form 990 2012
- Location
- Huntington Beach, CA, USA
- Phone
- 7145363500
- Rating confidence
- Limited
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $352,349
- Expenses
- $821,742
- Assets
- $0
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2012. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
3 people listed
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2012. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The purpose of the association of surfing professionals (asp) north america, inc. Is to promote the sport of professional surfing in north america. Asp is the governing body of professional surfing in north america. Asp administers and sanctions professional surfing competitors in north america.
What it reported doing in 2012
The purpose of the association of surfing professionals (asp) north america, inc. Is to promote the sport of professional surfing in north america. Asp is the governing body of professional surfing in north america. Asp administers and sanctions professional surfing competitions in north america.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 99% 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
- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
- Transparency & Controls: 79
- Accountability: 49
- Sustainability: 5
- Growth: 0
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: Limited
- Program expense ratio: Limited
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 87.5%; rating input score 88; 4th 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: 57.1%; rating input score 57; 15th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -133.2%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
- Officer compensation ratio: 7.1%; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: -18.7% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -200% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
- Governance: 4 of 7 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $192K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $58K · 3 people listed
- Consistency: 14 of 15 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules
- Filing history: 2 filing years from 2011 to 2012
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
- Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 8 not reported.
- Review — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 57/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 1/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D land buildings reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 40/100.