Surf Industry Members Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
330385201
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2025
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Aliso Viejo, CA, USA
Phone
9493661164
Rating
64
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$215,375
Expenses
$188,508
Assets
$46,165
Liabilities
$89,104

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KELLY GIBSON (PRESIDENT/CE)

People named in this filing

  • KELLY GIBSON (PRESIDENT/CE)
  • JOHN WILSON (VP/SECRETARY)
  • JOHNNY GEHRIS (TREASURER/CF)

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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To support the growth of the surf industry through fearless innovation, stoke and sustainability.

What it reported doing in 2025

Beginning in 2004, sima has conducted the surf industry's retail distribution study every two years. The sima retail distribution studies contain the most in-depth and relevant information that will help members to better understand the current retail landscape and monitor retail sales trends in the u.s. Surf and skate industry. The reports include overall surf and skate industry data and statistics covering areas such as dollar size of the markets, unit sales, regional and channel differences, and comparative sales trends. The data has proven to be of enormous use to all members, from board builders to the largest international apparel companies alik.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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: 44
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Accountability: 64
  • Sustainability: 41
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 47.4%; rating input score 47
  • Program expense ratio: 54.2%; rating input score 54
  • 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: Yes; rating input score 100

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 14
    • 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: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 12.5%; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.24; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.93; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.5% per year; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -14.5% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -21.4% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 4 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 47.4% of revenue deployed · 54.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 13 people listed
  • Consistency: 19 of 19 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes related organizations
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2015 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Related organizations: 2 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 47/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 6 not reported.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 54/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 14/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 1/100.