American Society for Horticultural Science

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
381574442
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Alexandria, VA, USA
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Professional Societies, Associations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,805,641
Expenses
$1,517,788
Assets
$2,816,108
Liabilities
$373,715

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DEAN KOPSELL (PRESIDENT THRU SEPT CHAIR AS OF OCT)
  • ROLSTON ST HILAIRE (PRESIDENT ELECT)
  • TRACY SHAWN (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)

Highest reported compensation

  • TRACY SHAWN (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER): $219,464 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To promote encourage natl intl interest in scientific research & education in all branches of horticulture.

What it reported doing in 2024

Publications- ashs publishes the following: horttechnology- a bimonthly publication of applied horticultural science for the professional horticulturist extension worker and practicioner. Hortscience- a monthly publication of horticultural information of interest to a broad array of horticulturists. Its goals are to apprise horticultural scientists and others intersted in horticulture about developments in significant research education industry and extension findings or methods. The journal of the american society for horticultural science- a bimonthly publication of the results of original research on horticultural plants and their products or on directly related research.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 95% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 95% 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 program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 66
  • Transparency & Controls: 77
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 59
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 68.5%; rating input score 68
  • Program expense ratio: 83.7%; rating input score 84
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 94.4%; rating input score 94; 41st 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: 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: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 15.9%; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.86; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.13; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 14.5%; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -2.4% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -0.9% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 0.8% per year; rating input score 100; 20th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 68.5% of revenue deployed · 83.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $1.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $219K · 14 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $312K reported
  • Consistency: 40 of 41 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 24/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 38/100.