International Society for Neuroethology

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
330103940
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Glen Allen, VA, USA
Phone
7852892056
Rating
54
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$95,026
Expenses
$65,760
Assets
$573,963
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Karen Mesce (Past President)
  • Cynthia Moss (President)
  • Elke Buschbeck (President-Elect)

People named in this filing

  • Karen Mesce (Past President)
  • Cynthia Moss (President)
  • Susan Fahrbach (Treasurer)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The purpose of the society is to advance the understanding of the neural bases of behavior in all animals, vertebrate and invertebrate. To this end, the society promotes neuroethology by publishing newsletters; maintaining a membership list to foster communication; sponsoring educational opportunities for students from developing nations; providing research and travel support in the form of grants and awards to members, especially young trainees; and holding the biennial International Congress of Neuroethology to allow the exchange of scientific information.

What it reported doing in 2025

We are currently planning for the 2026 International Congress of Neuroethology in Vancouver, BC to be held at the University of British Columbia, Canada, 26 to 31 July, 2026, and have provided seed money to the local organizing committee to reserve meeting rooms and accommodations ($30,000). The 2024 International Congress of Neuroethology held in Berlin, Germany, 28 July to 2 August 2024 finalized their accounts and returned $45,604 to the International Society for Neuroethology to provide support for future congresses.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 77% for direct work, and 23% for grants.

The verdict

MIXED - Most voting board members are independent and program spending has grown recently. 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: 36
  • Transparency & Controls: 44
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 69
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 43.1%; rating input score 43
  • Program expense ratio: 35.6%; rating input score 36
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 81.8%; rating input score 82; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • 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: Limited
    • May require repayment: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 0%; rating input score 0; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 30.8%; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 8.73; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 30.4% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 12% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 0% per year; rating input score 100; 37th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 43.1% of revenue deployed · 35.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $23K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 41 of 43 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes foreign activity
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2020 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 43/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 36/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 58/100.