Clinical Laboratory Scientists of Alaska

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
920148966
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2009–2017
Forms available
Form 990 2015, Form 990-EZ 2017
Location
Anchorage, AK, USA
Phone
9075181320
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Labor Unions

Reported finances

Revenue
$31,520
Expenses
$39,876
Assets
$36,927

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • BRIAN WEISMAN (PAST PRESIDENT)
  • ERIN FRASHER (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • BRIAN WEISMAN (PAST PRESIDENT)
  • ERIN FRASHER (PRESIDENT)
  • TONY GREGSTON (SECRETARY)

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 2017. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Provide educational opportunities to members in medical technology allowing for updated skills and access to new technologies

What it reported doing in 2017

Provide an annual conference to help members maintain and improve their skills through learning about new equipment and lectures from companies and professional speakers. Members have the opportunity to discuss state and local problems, compare and contrast issues, standards, methodologies of their prespective laboratories. Workshops and seminars are sponsored to provide continuing education. The conferences benefit approximately over 300 members.

Operating model

Revenue model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent revenue detail to tell how this nonprofit funds its work.
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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 78
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 29
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 84.7%; rating input score 85
  • Program expense ratio: 66.9%; rating input score 67

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -26.5%; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.93; rating input score 46; 46th 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: -6.2% per year; rating input score 0; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -0.7% per year; rating input score 0; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -4.9% per year; rating input score 0; 28th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 84.7% of revenue deployed · 66.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $27K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 8 of 8 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 1 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2009 to 2017
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 18/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 46/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.