International Accreditation Service Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
043649274
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Country Club Hills, IL, USA
Phone
8884227233
Rating
62
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Business and Industry

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$20,643,157
Expenses
$11,552,276
Assets
$48,492,623
Liabilities
$3,341,972

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DOMINIC SIMS (CEO)
  • RAJ N NATHAN (PRESIDENT, IAS)

Highest reported compensation

  • DOMINIC SIMS (CEO): $1,429,043 total reported compensation
  • JOHN BELCIK (COO/CFO): $1,019,167 total reported compensation
  • RAJ N NATHAN (PRESIDENT, IAS): $481,377 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 assist regulators in providing for the public welfare and safety, the fundamental goals of ias are to: -improve the quality of inspection bodies and the services they provide. -improve the quality of testing and calibration laboratories. -promote the use of accredited fabricator inspection programs by regulators and the private sector. -facilitate domestic and international trade by accrediting competent conformity assessment organizations.

What it reported doing in 2024

Ias provides a wide range of accreditation program services, including accreditation of conformity assessment bodies, such as: -testing and calibration laboratories -inspection agencies -fabricatior inspection of structural steel and concrete fabricators -building and fire prevention departments -special inspection agencies -product and personnel certification bodies -training agencies -metal building manufacturers inspection -field evaluation bodies -management system certification bodies -medical laboratories -food safety management systems -reference material producer -proficiency testing provider -validation and verification bodies ias accredits conformity assessment bodies irrespective of the economic sector they represent or the scope of services involved. Advantages of ias accreditation: complete confidence: ias accreditation to internationally accepted standards provides complete confidence in the quality of services provided to conformity assessment bodies. Transparency: ias accreditation is independent and objective, and is based on a completely transparent accreditation process, thereby instilling confidence in the accreditation results. Competence: ias accreditation provides evidence that conformity assessment bodies render competent and consistent service in line with international standards. Outstanding quality of assessments: ias places critical importance on the training of its assessors. This leads to high levels of assessor competency and enhanced technical expertise. Enhanced knowledge base: with its excellent knowledge base and team of technical experts, ias helps to improve the quality of accredited conformity assessment bodies.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 89% of the money available for current operations came from other operating 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 - Most voting board members are independent and program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 57
  • Transparency & Controls: 41
  • Accountability: 91
  • Sustainability: 78
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 52%; rating input score 52
  • Program expense ratio: 82.9%; rating input score 83
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Grant itemization coverage: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: 44%; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.2; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.07; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 14.8%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 8% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 12.4% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 19.1% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 52% of revenue deployed · 82.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $9.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $1.4M · 15 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $1M reported
  • Consistency: 26 of 26 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes foreign activity and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 7 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: Mission deployment rate scored 52/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 8/100.