Ispac Ltd

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
510304622
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2014–2017
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2017, Form 990-N 2013
Location
Sugar Land, TX, USA
Phone
9792357306
Rating
92
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Chemistry, Chemical Engineering

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$90,513
Expenses
$97,200
Assets
$61,215

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

People named in this filing

  • Wayne F Reed (ISPAC Chair for Americas)
  • Julius Vancso (ISPAC Chair for Europe and Asia)
  • Alexander Willem deGroot (ISPAC 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 2017. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

We give educational technical short courses and conferences on the topic of polymer characterization annually.

What it reported doing in 2017

The ISPAC LTD organization has one conference annually on the scientific topic of Polymer Characterization. The conference consists of 3.5 days of short courses, invited talks and submitted talks. The first day consists entirely of short courses. The next 2.5 days consists of scientific talks. The conference is global with at least every other year taking place outside the US. In 2018 the conference took place in Gaithersburg, MD. We typically have between 110 and 150 attendees, however, in 2018 we only had 107.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Program spending has declined or grown slowly and revenue has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 100
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Sustainability: 32
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100

Transparency & Controls

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

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -7.4%; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.63; rating input score 36; 36th 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: -7.3% per year; rating input score 0; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -10.5% per year; rating input score 0; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -0.4% per year; rating input score 0; 41st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $97K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 7 of 7 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2014 to 2017
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 32/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 36/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.