International Association of Meteorology and Atmospheric Sciences

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
874151202
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2022–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2023, Form 990-EZ 2025
Location
Madison, WI, USA
Rating
79
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Research Institutes and/or Public Policy Analysis

Reported finances

Revenue
$60,423
Expenses
$113,966
Assets
$385,452

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Andrea Flossmann (President)
  • John P Burrows (Vice President)
  • Mary Scholes (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Andrea Flossmann (President)
  • Keith Alverson (Secretary General)
  • John P Burrows (Vice President)

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 corporation is organized exclusively for the promotion of charitable scientific and educational purposes and to promote the study of communication about and the public education and awareness of the sciences of the atmospheres of Earth.

What it reported doing in 2025

ICCL represented IAMAS in sponsoring the GEWEX Open Science Conference. A grant funded the planning of a pan-cryospheric meeting covering all aspects of the cryosphere and its climate interactions. The event includes participants from various fields from modelers and observers to social scientists and community organizers. We invite established and up-and-coming experts along with early career researchers ECRs to share their research and explore the current state of cryospheric science in early 2026.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 82% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and some filed totals do not add up.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 80
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 33
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 96.6%; rating input score 97
  • Program expense ratio: 51.2%; rating input score 51

Transparency & Controls

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

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -88.6%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.38; rating input score 77; 77th 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: 55.6% per year; rating input score 100; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 54.9% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 15.8% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 96.6% of revenue deployed · 51.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 6 filed program accomplishments · $58K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 6 of 7 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 3 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 51/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part III transfer expenses within program total did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 8/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.