American Association for Laboratory Animal Science
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 362445901
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
- Location
- Memphis, TN, USA
- Phone
- 9017548620
- Rating
- 75
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Professional Societies, Associations
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $5,273,205
- Expenses
- $5,513,407
- Assets
- $17,254,122
- Liabilities
- $1,615,543
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
22 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- JAMES D MACY DACLAM (PRESIDENT)
- JORI K LESZCZYNSKI DACLAM (VICE PRESIDENT)
- BRIAN J EBERT (VICE PRESIDENT-ELECT)
- ROBERT H QUINN DACLAM (PAST PRESIDENT)
- THOMAS JOSEPH (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
- CHRIS LYONS (ASSOCIATE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- THOMAS JOSEPH (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $399,955 total reported compensation
- JENNIFER C SMITH DCLAM (DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION): $295,205 total reported compensation
- CHRIS LYONS (ASSOCIATE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $211,835 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Educational association that advances responsible laboratory animal care and use.
What it reported doing in 2024
Educational association that advances responsible laboratory animal care and use by providing educational materials to laboratory animal care professionals and researchers, administering certification programs for laboratory animal technicians and managers, publishing scholarly journals, supporting laboratory animal science research, and serving as the premier forum for the exchange of information and expertise in the care and use of laboratory animals.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Other-operating. 68% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 97% 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 - 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 revenue has declined or grown slowly.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 80
- Transparency & Controls: 73
- Accountability: 82
- Sustainability: 40
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 89.7%; rating input score 90
- Program expense ratio: 90.9%; rating input score 91
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 96.1%; rating input score 96; 31st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 5 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 56
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -4.6%; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.13; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.09; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 22.6%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 0.6% per year; rating input score 100; 16th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -0.1% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 3.2% per year; rating input score 100; 25th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 89.7% of revenue deployed · 90.9% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 17 of 17 board members independent · 5 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $5M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $400K · 22 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $1.3M reported
- Consistency: 33 of 34 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
- Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 11 filed money-flow records
- 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.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 9 not reported.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 21/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 10/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.