American Society for Bone and Mineral Research

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
431123207
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2023671161
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$5,667,449
Expenses
$4,830,658
Assets
$8,881,934
Liabilities
$1,369,968

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

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LAURA M CALVI MD (PRESIDENT)
  • JENNIFER WESTENDORF PHD (PRESIDENT-ELECT)
  • MARY BOUXSEIN PHD (PAST-PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • DEBORAH VEIS MD PHD (EX-OFFICIO MEMBER): $33,334 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 advance bone, mineral and musculoskeletal science worldwide and promote the translation of basic and clinical research to improve human health.

What it reported doing in 2024

Publications - the society publishes a monthly magazine titled the journal of bone and mineral research (jbmr), which includes original manuscripts, reviews, and special articles in basic and clinical science relevant to bone, muscle and mineral metabolism. In addition to jbmr, the society also publishes jbmr plus, primer, and a weekly an e-news weekly. Exclusive to the society's members, the e-news weekly provides information about grant announcements, asbmr meeting information, information about the society's advocacy efforts with other bone-related organizations, and executive summaries of noteworthy news articles pertaining to the bone field.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 80% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 90% 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. Program spending has declined or grown slowly and revenue has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 62
  • Transparency & Controls: 74
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 66
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 69%; rating input score 69
  • Program expense ratio: 70.8%; rating input score 71
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Pass
    • 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: 87.9%; rating input score 88; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • 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: 14.8%; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.84; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.15; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0.7%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -1.2% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -1.2% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -1.4% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 69% of revenue deployed · 70.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 15 of 16 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 9 filed program accomplishments · $3.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $33K · 16 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $490K reported
  • Consistency: 27 of 29 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and grants
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 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 — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 59/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 50/100.