Casualty Actuarial Society
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 136113674
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Arlington, VA, USA
- Phone
- 7032763100
- Rating confidence
- Limited
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $23,998,429
- Expenses
- $22,327,723
- Assets
- $36,285,988
- Liabilities
- $9,600,647
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
38 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- A DAVID CUMMINGS (PRESIDENT)
- BARRY FRANKLIN (PRESIDENT-ELECT)
- VICTOR CARTER-BEY (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)
Highest reported compensation
- VICTOR CARTER-BEY (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER): $744,700 total reported compensation
- TODD ROGERS (CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER): $468,472 total reported compensation
- J MICHAEL BOA (CHIEF COMMUNICATIONS OFFICER): $412,153 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
See schedule o.the purposes of the casualty actuarial society are to advance the body of knowledge of actuarial science applied to general insurance, including property, casualty and similar risk exposures; to expand the application of actuarial science to enterprise risk and systemic risks; to establish and maintain standards of qualification for membership; to promote and maintain high standards of conduct and competence; to increase awareness of actuarial science; and, to contribute to the well being of society as a whole.
What it reported doing in 2024
Publications and reference materials: produced 6 issues of actuarial review, 2 variance journals, several white papers, research papers, and monographs to further the knowledge and understanding of property casualty actuarial professionals and exam applicants.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Other-operating. 96% of the money available for current operations came from other operating 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: 72
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 51
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: Limited
- Program expense ratio: Limited
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 80%; rating input score 80; 0th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 5 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 83
- Compensation committee: Pass
- Independent consultant: Pass
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
- Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
- Requires narrative reports: Fail
- Conducts field audits: Fail
- May suspend future funding: Fail
- Requires financial reports: Fail
- Conducts site visits: Fail
- Requires grant agreements: Fail
- May require repayment: Fail
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 7%; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.63; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.26; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 14.5%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: 6.3% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 8.4% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
- Governance: 17 of 17 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments
- Leadership: top reported pay $745K · 38 people listed · 5 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $2.4M reported
- Consistency: 13 of 15 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 22 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 15 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.
- Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 7 of 8 not reported.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 54/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 9/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 50/100.