Open Source Hardware Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
455524560
IRS 990 coverage
2022–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2020
Location
Boulder, CO, USA
Phone
9173282489
Rating
82
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Service Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$770,135
Expenses
$816,522
Assets
$212,417
Liabilities
$200

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • THEA FLOWERS (PRESIDENT)
  • KATHERINE SCOTT (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • ALICIA SEIDLE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • ALICIA SEIDLE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $50,894 total reported compensation
  • LEE WILKINS (SUMMIT CHAIR): $15,000 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The open source hardware association (oshwa) aims to foster technological knowledge and encourage research that is accessible, collaborative and respects user freedom.

What it reported doing in 2025

Educate the general public about open source hardware and its socially beneficial uses: oshwa embarked on research for an open healthware ecosystem, bringing health and medical devices into open source. We held six workshops attended by approximately 130 participants, and a conference with 100 in-person participants, and 930 online viewers. Throughout 2025, our participants co-created a standard for source in open hardware medical devices and we began the work of creating a certification and best practices around that standard.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 90% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Program spending has declined or grown slowly and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 82
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 26
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 93.6%; rating input score 94
  • Program expense ratio: 88.3%; rating input score 88
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 88.9%; rating input score 89; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • 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: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -6%; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.26; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 8.1%; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -2.8% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 22.2% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 13.6% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 93.6% of revenue deployed · 88.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 9 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $721K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $51K · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 25 of 25 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2022 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • 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 — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 18/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 13/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 43/100.