International Journal of Industrial Engineering

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
311449820
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2013–2015
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2015, Form 990-N 2014
Location
Iowa City, IA, USA
Phone
9152279812
Rating
41
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Printing, Publishing

Reported finances

Revenue
$13,935
Expenses
$28,897
Assets
$0

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

People named in this filing

  • ARUNKUMAR PENNATHUR (EDITOR IN CHIEF)
  • PRIYADARSHINI PENNATHUR (EDITOR)
  • GYU LEE (EDITOR)

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 2015. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The journal emphasizes use of engineering design and analysis and strives to maintain a balance between research and application. The journal covers all aspects of industrial engineering. The journal encourages interdisciplinary studies requiring the use of Industrial Engineering techniques and methodologies. From time-to-time, the journal publishes invited keynote papers and special issues devoted to specific topics. In addition to technical articles, the journal publishes book reviews, calendar of events, conference announcements and reports, calls for papers, and significant Industrial Engineering news.

What it reported doing in 2015

Publishing and distributing of international journal of industrial engineering to individuals and libraries globally.

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
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

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 15
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 10
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 18.5%; rating input score 19
  • Program expense ratio: 8.9%; rating input score 9

Transparency & Controls

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

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -107.4%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -70.7% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -35% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -100% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 18.5% of revenue deployed · 8.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $3K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 5 of 6 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2013 to 2015
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 19/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 9/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part III transfer expenses within program total did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 6/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 1/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 57/100.