California Thoracic Society
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 800627724
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2012–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- San Francisco, CA, USA
- Phone
- 4155360287
- Rating
- 66
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Chambers of Commerce & Business Leagues
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $342,262
- Expenses
- $337,159
- Assets
- $122,923
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
16 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- GEORGE SU MD (IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT)
- BROOKS KUHN MD (PRESIDENT ELECT)
- TISHA WANG MD (PRESIDENT)
- JASON SEIDLER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
People named in this filing
- GEORGE SU MD (IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT)
- JAMES BROWN MD (DIRECTOR)
- LAUREN EGGERT MD (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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The California thoracic society's (cts) mission is to improve California lung health and, through advocacy and education, advance the science and practice of pulmonary, sleep, and critical care medicine.
What it reported doing in 2024
Conferences and pt programs- major cts professional activites include a continuing medical education conference, development and dissemination of professional guidelines and patient education items, government policy, communication via cts inspirations and the members' only listserv ([email protected]), the proficiency testing program for blood gases/electrolytes+/co-ox, and numerous special committee projects each year to provide better pulmonary, sleep, and critical care
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 90% 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 - 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: 48
- Transparency & Controls: 90
- Accountability: 70
- Sustainability: 43
- Growth: 80
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 53.8%; rating input score 54
- Program expense ratio: 54.6%; rating input score 55
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- 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: 1.5%; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.36; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 40.6% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 1.3% per year; rating input score 100; 30th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -7.1% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 53.8% of revenue deployed · 54.6% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $184K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 16 people listed
- Consistency: 15 of 15 current checks pass
- Schedules: 2 filed schedules
- Filing history: 4 filing years from 2012 to 2024
- 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.
Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 54/100.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 55/100.
- High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 43/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 19/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.