SOCSA Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
330810174
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2015
Forms available
Form 990 2015, Form 990-EZ 2009
Location
Dana Point, CA, USA
Phone
9492401994
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$19,032
Expenses
$67,079
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Denise Erkeneff (President)
  • Wendie Newman (Vice President)
  • Dawn Wood (Vice President)
  • Courtney Zani (Vice President)
  • Miriam Guthary (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Denise Erkeneff (President)
  • Wendie Newman (Vice President)
  • Heidi Argent (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 2015. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To provide an in-depth educational opportunity to capistrano unified school district students who have chosen fine arts as their first occupation objective.

What it reported doing in 2015

Provide students with intensive training in the arts through a diverse art curriculum, offering comprehensive study in the visual arts, dance, musical theatre, acting, directing, television production, script writing, theatre history, art history, graphic and commercial art, vocal and instrumental music, and communications. Students receive individual and group attention from a faculty who have broad artistic competencies and expertise, including guest lecturers, performers, and designers. Course sequences with career themes afford students the chance to explore and develop their artistic talents, to understand the opportunities available to them, to have mentor and work experience, and to develop employability transcripts that will set them apart from the crowd.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 96
  • Transparency & Controls: 76
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 13
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 95.8%; rating input score 96
  • Fundraising efficiency: $27.58 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 84.6%; rating input score 85; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 74.7%; rating input score 75; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: -252.5%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -76% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -15% per year; rating input score 0; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -15% per year; rating input score 0; 15th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 95.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $64K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 14 of 16 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2014 to 2015
  • 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: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 10/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 2/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.