Bio-design Automation Consortium
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 800875961
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2015–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2024, Form 990-N 2017
- Location
- Newton, MA, USA
- Phone
- 6174202322
- Rating
- 79
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Biological & Life Sciences
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $41,028
- Expenses
- $33,024
- Assets
- $26,763
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
6 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- AARON ADLER (PRESIDENT)
People named in this filing
- AARON ADLER (PRESIDENT)
- NATASA MISKOV-ZIVANOV (VICE PRESIDE)
- TRACI HADDOCK-ANGELLI (TREASURER)
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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To provide and promote education, research, training, and advancement of state-of-the-art technology in the fields of synthetic biology and bio- design automation.
What it reported doing in 2024
Held the international workshop on biodesign automation, a conference/workshop that is run entirely by volunteers from the board and other persons working and teaching in the fields of synthetic biology, systems biology and design automation. Its attended by approximately 75- 100 scholars from the us and abroad.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 63% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- 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 a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Revenue has declined or grown slowly and assets have declined or grown slowly.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 68
- Transparency & Controls: 100
- Sustainability: 53
- Growth: 40
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 62.5%; rating input score 62
- Program expense ratio: 77.6%; rating input score 78
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 19.5%; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.81; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 3.2% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -4.7% per year; rating input score 0; 35th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -10% per year; rating input score 0; 17th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 62.5% of revenue deployed · 77.6% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $26K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed
- Consistency: 6 of 6 current checks pass
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules
- Filing history: 8 filing years from 2015 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
- 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 — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 41/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.