International Hydrolyzed Protein Council
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 521091972
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2010–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2024
- Location
- Washington, DC, USA
- Phone
- 2026375926
- Rating confidence
- Limited
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $20,023
- Expenses
- $18,107
- Assets
- $39,182
- Liabilities
- $150
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
3 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- TIM YOHO (PRESIDENT)
People named in this filing
- TIM YOHO (PRESIDENT)
- KAM PATEL (SECRETARY-TREASURER)
- ASUKA TAKUMI (TECHNICAL COMMITTEE CHAIR)
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
Ihpc was formed in Washington dc in 1977 by manufacturers and end users of hydrolyzed vegetable proteins for two purposes:1) conducting an industry wide program, both national and international in scope, of scientific research, regarding the various aspects of the composition, manufacture, distribution, and use of hydrolyzed proteins, marketed for food uses, to assure their safety, functional value, and purity; and2) to disseminate to the general public information regarding the results of any such research and other pertinent information and to share them with legislative and regulatory bodies, in whatever national or international jurisdiction as may be desired or required from time to time.
What it reported doing in 2024
Keeping member companies apprised of regulatory, legal, and scientific information of interest to the hydrolyzed protein and yeast extract industries.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Membership-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from membership dues.
- 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
- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 59
- Growth: 0
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: Limited
- Program expense ratio: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 9.6%; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.16; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: -8.9% per year; rating input score 0; 26th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -0% per year; rating input score 0; 38th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
- Consistency: 7 of 7 current checks pass
- Schedules: 2 filed schedules
- Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- 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.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 32/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.