Institute for the Advancement of Food and Nutrition Sciences

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
521745052
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2026590184
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
General Science

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,771,086
Expenses
$2,818,349
Assets
$7,453,682
Liabilities
$2,039,787

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

Leadership & pay

37 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DR WENDELYN JONES (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • DR WENDELYN JONES (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $352,701 total reported compensation
  • MS BETH-ELLEN BERRY CPA (CFO/COO): $241,380 total reported compensation
  • MS MARIE LATULIPPE (DIRECTOR OF SCIENCE PROGRAMS): $182,218 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Iafns is a non-profit scientific organization that advances food safety and nutrition science for the benefit of public health. We bring together scientists from governments, academia, and industry to work cooperatively and with shared purpose.

What it reported doing in 2024

Iafns food microbiology committee is a recognized scientific leader in microbial food safety and actively works to improve the understanding and control of microbial food safety hazards to enable scientifically informed decision making. In 2024, the committee advanced a new project: development of nonpolar liquid antimicrobial delivery system for dry sanitation. By implementing more effective sanitation techniques, without the use of water, we can ultimately reduce foodborne pathogenic contamination and improve public health. The committee also supported a research roundtable with presentations across the public and private sector. Additionally, the food microbiology committee supported two sessions and a breakfast meeting at the 2024 international association for food protection's annual meeting in long beach California. The sessions mobilized knowledge of relevant and ongoing food safety topics including the importance of hygienic separation with low moisture foods.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 81% 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. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 78
  • Transparency & Controls: 75
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 38
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 82.4%; rating input score 82
  • Program expense ratio: 79.6%; rating input score 80
  • Fundraising efficiency: $16.15 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Limited
    • Conducts field audits: Limited
    • May suspend future funding: Limited
    • Requires financial reports: Limited
    • Conducts site visits: Limited
    • Requires grant agreements: Pass
    • May require repayment: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 99%; rating input score 99; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -1.7%; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.64; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.27; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 43.4%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -3.9% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -2.6% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 0.8% per year; rating input score 100; 15th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 82.4% of revenue deployed · 79.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 23 of 23 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $2.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $353K · 37 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 33 of 34 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 15 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 9 filed related-organization links
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 53/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 27/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 2/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 36/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.