American Society for Rickettsiology Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 883277673
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2022–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2025
- Location
- South Miami, FL, USA
- Phone
- 3056615581
- Rating
- 91
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Specifically Named Diseases Research
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $97,218
- Expenses
- $110,729
- Assets
- $154,646
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
4 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Daniel Voth (President)
- Roman Ganta (President Elect)
People named in this filing
- Rebecca Lamason (Secretary/Treasurer)
- Daniel Voth (President)
- Karen Gottlieb (Executive Manager)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The American Society for Rickettsiology was organized to foster exchange of information among American scientists engaged in research on Rickettsiae and Rickettsial diseases. The field encompasses a wide range of human pathogens and includes members of the genera Anaplasma, Bartonella, Coxiella, Ehrlichia, Orientia and Rickettsia. Currently, about two hundred scientists and students are members of this organization and meetings are held annually.
What it reported doing in 2025
Annual Meeting in Asheville, NC
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 81% 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
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Revenue has declined or grown slowly and expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 92
- Transparency & Controls: 100
- Sustainability: 43
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 95.8%; rating input score 96
- Program expense ratio: 84.1%; rating input score 84
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -13.9%; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.4; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 0.9% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -7% per year; rating input score 0; 30th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 29.5% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 95.8% of revenue deployed · 84.1% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $93K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
- Consistency: 9 of 9 current checks pass
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules
- Filing history: 4 filing years from 2022 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- 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: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 26/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 56/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.