Strategic Account Management Association
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 132558593
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2013–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Chicago, IL, USA
- Phone
- 3122513131
- Rating
- 46
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $3,812,537
- Expenses
- $4,136,008
- Assets
- $3,619,926
- Liabilities
- $2,062,690
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
28 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- GEOFF WILLIAMS (INTERIM CEO)
- GORDON GALZERANO (PRESIDENT AND CEO)
- DENISE FREIER (PRESIDENT AND CEO)
Highest reported compensation
- FRAN SCHWARTZ (DIRECTOR OF FINANCE, MEETINGS AND OPERATIONS): $193,606 total reported compensation
- ELISABETH SOUDER (DIRECTOR OF KNOWLEDGE AND CERTIFICATION): $186,275 total reported compensation
- GORDON GALZERANO (PRESIDENT AND CEO): $161,374 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The strategic account management association (sama) is a knowledge-sharing organization devoted to developing, promoting and advancing the concept of customer supplier collaboration through communities of practice.sama is dedicated to the professional development of the individuals and companies involved in the process of managing national, global and strategic customer relationships, and enabling members to create greater customer value and achieve competitive advantage accordingly.
What it reported doing in 2024
Domestic, european meetings- sama pan-european conference- samas premiere networking and educational event in europe, it draws approximately 75 sam professionals, who take part in 10 short sessions on a broad range of sam-related topics. Sama academy are the events where sama offers our csam (certified strategic account manager) and training classes. These classes last either one or two days and are deep dive classes that train against our best in class competency model.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 93% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- 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 - Most voting board members are independent and program spending has grown recently. 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: 22
- Transparency & Controls: 50
- Accountability: 90
- Sustainability: 20
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 25.6%; rating input score 26
- Program expense ratio: 23.6%; rating input score 24
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 4th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
- Written employment contract: Pass
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Scored; rating input score 0
- Grant itemization coverage: Scored; rating input score 0
- 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: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
- 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: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -8.5%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.88; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.57; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 28.5%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 54% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -1.3% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 3.9% per year; rating input score 100; 29th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 25.6% of revenue deployed · 23.6% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 21 of 21 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments
- Leadership: top reported pay $194K · 28 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 13 of 28 current checks pass · 15 findings to review
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and executive pay
- Filing history: 11 filing years from 2013 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 8 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 26/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 24/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 15/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 33/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 6/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 18/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Advertising column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX CompCurrentOfficersDirectors column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX DepreciationDepletion column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesAccounting column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesLegal column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX InformationTechnology column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Insurance column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Occupancy column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX OfficeExpenses column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX OtherEmployeeBenefits column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX OtherSalariesAndWages column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX PayrollTaxes column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX PensionPlanContributions column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Travel column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.