Building Safety Alliance
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 475659550
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2016–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2015
- Location
- San Francisco, CA, USA
- Phone
- 4152978369
- Rating
- 61
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Community Coalitions
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $83,692
- Expenses
- $33,196
- Assets
- $180,753
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
9 people listed
People named in this filing
- Daniel Fross (Executive Dir.)
- Cathleen Lagomarsino (Chairperson)
- David Green (Sec/Treasurer)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To promote electrical safety by advocating through education and political activity that Authorities Having Jurisdiction employ qualified tradesmen for specialized electrical inspection of all new and modified electrical installations.
What it reported doing in 2025
Developing a Video message reviewing the history of Electrical Inspection in San Francisco, highlighting the need for electrical inspection to maintain safety of persons and property.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent revenue detail to tell how this nonprofit funds its work.
- 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
SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue comfortably covers expenses. 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: 33
- Transparency & Controls: 100
- Sustainability: 75
- Growth: 20
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 21.1%; rating input score 21
- Program expense ratio: 53.2%; rating input score 53
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 60.3%; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.45; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -4.4% per year; rating input score 0; 37th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -6.8% per year; rating input score 0; 30th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 2.7% per year; rating input score 100; 48th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 21.1% of revenue deployed · 53.2% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 3 filed program accomplishments · $18K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 9 people listed
- Consistency: 7 of 7 current checks pass
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules
- Filing history: 10 filing years from 2016 to 2025
- 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 21/100.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 53/100.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.