South Asian Bar Association of North America Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
820561264
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Encino, CA, USA
Phone
9496774180
Rating
44
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Chambers of Commerce & Business Leagues

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,380,556
Expenses
$1,266,829
Assets
$1,011,967
Liabilities
$376,369

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MONA SHAH (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • NISHI KOTHARI (PRESIDENT ELECT)
  • KEERTHI SUGURMARAN (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • MONA SHAH (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $130,000 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Our mission is to strengthen the rapidly growing south asian legal community with a recognized and trusted forum for professional growth and development, and to promote equal rights and access to justice for the south asian community.

What it reported doing in 2024

Annual national conference: for nearly two decades, the saba north america conference has been the premier professional development and networking event for south asian lawyers in north america. Bringing together attendees from across north america, each conference includes days of activities ranging from professional and networking development, cultural engagement and celebration, to substantive legal programming. Our conference presents a unique opportunity to raise a members profile within the south asian bar, a group that includes corporate counsel, law firm partners and associates, federal, state, provincial, and appellate judges, law professors, government and public interest attorneys, entrepreneurs, and law students from across north america and beyond.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 80% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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

MIXED - 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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 72
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 45
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Limited
    • Conducts field audits: Limited
    • May suspend future funding: Limited
    • Requires financial reports: Limited
    • Conducts site visits: Limited
    • Requires grant agreements: Limited
    • May require repayment: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 95.3%; rating input score 95; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 8.2%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.8; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.37; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 10.3%; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -5.4% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 10.9% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 9.4% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $978K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $130K · 14 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $211K reported
  • Consistency: 12 of 14 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and grants
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 3 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.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 58/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 36/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 21/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 36/100.