California Masonic Memorial Temple

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
941266937
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
San Francisco, CA, USA
Phone
4157767000
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,376,459
Expenses
$3,233,299
Assets
$13,114,551
Liabilities
$1,394,884

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MARK E PRESSEY (CHAIRMAN & PRESIDENT (THRU 10/25))

Highest reported compensation

  • ALLAN L CASALOU (GRAND SECRETARY): $429,997 total reported compensation
  • CAROL R HUNTER (CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER): $368,833 total reported compensation
  • ANDREW CAMERON (GENERAL COUNSEL): $283,780 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To operate exclusively for charitable or educational purposes as a supporting organization and for the benefit of, to perform the functions of, or to carry out the purposes of, the California masonic foundation, a California non-profit public benefit corporation.

What it reported doing in 2024

California masonic memorial temple operates exclusively as a supporting organization and for the benefit of, to perform the functions of, or to carry out the purposes of, the California masonic foundation, a California non-profit organization. Any excess of California masonic temple income, less operating expenses and reserves, is transferred to the foundation at the end of each fiscal year.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 87% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 78
  • Transparency & Controls: 67
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 58
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 89.4%; rating input score 89
  • Program expense ratio: 85.8%; rating input score 86
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 4.2%; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.06; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.11; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 7%; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6.6% per year; rating input score 100; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.8% per year; rating input score 100; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.9% per year; rating input score 100; 23rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 89.4% of revenue deployed · 85.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.8M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $430K · 12 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $1.4M reported
  • Consistency: 30 of 30 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, executive pay, and related organizations
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 5 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 48/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 41/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 57/100.