Oregon School Facility Management Association Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
930937538
IRS 990 coverage
2022–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2020
Location
Salem, OR, USA
Phone
5034807218
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$254,015
Expenses
$202,302
Assets
$313,944
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Jackie Olsen (Executive Director)
  • Anne Birky (President)
  • Chelsea Lincoln Lane (President Elect)
  • Jon McCalip (Vice President)
  • Alan Crapser (Past President)

People named in this filing

  • Amanda Wall (Zone Director)
  • Leroy Crouch (Zone Director)
  • Eathan Kennelly (Zone 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

To promote and foster the highest level of professionalism in the planning, maintenance, and operation of school facilities, and to strengthen the quality and efficiency of maintenance and operations through professional management of Oregon schools.

What it reported doing in 2024

OSFMA conducts multiple professional development opportunities throughout the year. The primary conference is held in April and spans two days. Attendance has been increasing annually and included over 200 participants in 2025. Monthly meetings are also scheduled as a way for members to attend and learn from peers from different size schools across the state. (Code 611430)

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 87% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 95% 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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 51
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 68
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 52.8%; rating input score 53
  • Program expense ratio: 65.3%; rating input score 65
  • 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: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • 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: 20.4%; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.55; rating input score 52; 52nd 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: 9% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.9% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 9.5% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 52.8% of revenue deployed · 65.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $132K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 12 people listed
  • Consistency: 23 of 23 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2022 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 53/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 52/100.