Joint Review Committee Epnmt Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
363964285
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Edmond, OK, USA
Phone
4052850546
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Education N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$379,120
Expenses
$262,904
Assets
$1,716,540
Liabilities
$28,014

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

People named in this filing

  • JIM MCCUMISKEY MHA CNMT PET (Director)
  • MEAGAN BRYANT MEd (Director)
  • ANDREW TROUT MD (VICE-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. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The Joint Review Committee on Educational Programs in Nuclear Medicine Technology (JRCNMT) and its collaborating organizations cooperate to establish, maintain and promote appropriate standards of quality for postsecondary educational programs in nuclear medicine technology to provide skilled, professional services to patients.

What it reported doing in 2024

The Joint Review Committee evaluated 11 academic programs for initial or continued accreditation in 2024 via self-study review and inspection. The organization approved 85 additional clinical education facilities for accredited programs. Interim reports from 56 accredited programs were also reviewed in 2024. The organization received contributed services by physicians, technologists and other professionals, which were valued at $88,861.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 85% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. 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: 90
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 77
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 32.1%; rating input score 32
  • Program expense ratio: 54.7%; rating input score 55
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 30.7%; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.53; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -0.2% per year; rating input score 0; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.2% per year; rating input score 100; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.3% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 32.1% of revenue deployed · 54.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 7 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $144K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 13 people listed
  • Consistency: 22 of 22 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2014 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 32/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 55/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 42/100.