Structural Engineers Association of Southern California

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
956060480
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
North Hollywood, CA, USA
Phone
8185703408
Rating
46
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$342,400
Expenses
$317,811
Assets
$812,521
Liabilities
$136,588

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CRAIG CHAMBERLAIN (Past President)
  • GARRETT MILLS (President)

People named in this filing

  • DANIEL FOX (Treasurer)
  • CRAIG CHAMBERLAIN (Past President)
  • GARRETT MILLS (President)

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 advance the structural engineering profession, protect public safety and serve the business and professional needs of the membership

What it reported doing in 2024

The structural engineers association of southern California (seaosc) is a professional organization of civil and structural engineers which also includes affiliated construction industry members and students. The association provides its members with the forum, the educational opportunities and the challenge to meet the high standards of engineering excellence, and ethical and professional conduct in the design of structures and facilities within the broarder field of civil engineering. Seaosc is a member organization of the structural engineers of California(seaoc). Seaosc conducts regular monthly and bi-monthly meetings in los angeles, orange and ventura counties and arranges continuing education seminars by prominent members of the structural engineering community. There are approximately 1206 members

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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: 90
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 56
  • Growth: 20

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: 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: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • 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: 7.2%; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.56; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.17; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -38.2% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -3.2% per year; rating input score 0; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.7% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 12 people listed
  • Consistency: 13 of 14 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 55/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 21/100.