Culver City Senior Citizens Association Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
237425713
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2022
Location
Culver City, CA, USA
Phone
3102536700
Rating
63
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$294,312
Expenses
$352,751
Assets
$446,245
Liabilities
$7,247

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Margarita Garcia (President)
  • Darryl Cherness (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Margarita Garcia (President)
  • Darryl Cherness (Vice President)
  • Donna Irons (Secretary)

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

We provide educational, cultural and social services for senior citizens in the greater culver city area.

What it reported doing in 2025

Health and nutrition: low cost nutritious hot lunches are provided by the city in the facility's lunchroom every weekday and are also delivered to home-bound seniors by volunteers. Ccsca member volunteer in the lunchroom and ccsca subsidizes the cost of this program, including the cost of providing snack every weekday. Certificates for food purchases, supported by donations are provied to seniors in need during the year end holiday season. A well equipped gym staffed with city monitors is available to ccsca members for a small fee. Counseling services are provided onsite by local counseling programs.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 65% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 94% 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. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 86
  • Transparency & Controls: 88
  • Accountability: 0
  • Sustainability: 32
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 85.7%; rating input score 86
  • Fundraising efficiency: $4.7 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 0 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • 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: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -19.9%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.27; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -4.1% per year; rating input score 0; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -2.9% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 9.1% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 85.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 11 board members independent · 0 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $302K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 19 of 20 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2015 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 20/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 12/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 47/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 36/100.