California Section of the American Chemical Society

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
941358305
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
San Leandro, CA, USA
Phone
5103919922
Rating
66
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$488,911
Expenses
$220,930
Assets
$2,618,676
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

People named in this filing

  • ALEX MADONIK (CHAIR, DIRECTOR)
  • JAMES POSTMA (CHAIR-ELECT, DIRECTOR)
  • PATRICK LEE (IMMEDIATE PAST CHAIR, DIRECTOR)

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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The mission of the California section, american chemical society, is the advancement of all chemical activities, development of professional relations of those interested in chemistry and chemical engineering, promotion of the general welfare of the members, advancement of chemical education at all levels and dissemination of all relevant subject matters

What it reported doing in 2025

Local administration of the international chemistry olympiad program: students from northern California high schools compete for a position on the united states team in the international chemistry olympiad. The California section distributed testing materials, proctored exams and made local awards to participating students and teachers

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 65% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 65% for direct work, and 35% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of total spending goes to programs and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 60
  • Transparency & Controls: 58
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 87
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 48%; rating input score 48
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 80%; rating input score 80; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 0%; rating input score 0; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 54.8%; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 11.85; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 22.8% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 27% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.6% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 48% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $221K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 35 of 37 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2020 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 48/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.