International Society of Bone Morphometry Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
611281418
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2021–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2009
Location
Chicago, IL, USA
Phone
3129428294
Rating
42
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Service Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$44,230
Expenses
$5,367
Assets
$116,995
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Michelle McDonald (President)
  • Joel Boerckel (Member Board of Directors (President-Elect))

People named in this filing

  • Michelle McDonald (President)
  • Joel Boerckel (Member Board of Directors (President-Elect))
  • Frank Ko (Member Board of Directors (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-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Biomedical Research, with particular focus on skeletal tissue

What it reported doing in 2025

The Organization's primary purpose is to disseminate knowledge about all aspects of bone morphometry primarily by organizing biomedical research meeting every 2 to 3 years. During this year, the Society hosted the XVI Congress of the International Society of Bone Morphometry that was held in Toronto, Canada.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 89% 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

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up 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: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 89
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0

Transparency & Controls

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

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 87.9%; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 21.8; rating input score 96; 96th 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 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 50% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 51.9% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.9% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 8 of 9 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2021 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part III transfer expenses within program total did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.