Msacl

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
264812173
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2009
Location
Del Mar, CA, USA
Phone
8589225813
Rating
46
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Health - General and Rehabilitative N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$666,934
Expenses
$702,819
Assets
$663,694
Liabilities
$35,597

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CHRIS HEROLD (PRESIDENT & COO)
  • DAVID HEROLD (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • CHRIS HEROLD (PRESIDENT & COO): $192,863 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

MSACL (The Association for Mass Spectrometry & Advances in the Clinical Laboratory) facilitates discussion, networking, education and intellectual growth in the field of clinical analysis using mass spectrometry and other advanced technologies (including data science, NMR, etc.) with the goal of improving analytical competency and, thereby, patient outcomes. This mission is achieved via in-person conferences, online conferences and webinars, community outreach, and publishing a scientific journal (Journal of Mass Spectrometry & Advances in the Clinical Lab; JMSACL).

What it reported doing in 2024

We moved our conference month from march to september, so for fiscal year july 2024-june 2025 we did not hold a conference. Our next conference is september 21-26, 2025. On msacl connect, our virtual platform, we hosted 13 seminars. The open access msacl journal, jmsacl, published over 20 scientific papers and received an impact factor of 3.4 for 2024 (reported in july 2025).

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 100% 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

MIXED - 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 few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 34
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 64
  • Sustainability: 30
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 39.1%; rating input score 39
  • Program expense ratio: 37.1%; rating input score 37
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -5.4%; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.94; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.05; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 27.4%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -7.2% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -4.9% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -0.7% per year; rating input score 0; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 39.1% of revenue deployed · 37.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 6 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $261K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $193K · 6 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 23 of 23 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2013 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 39/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 37/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 23/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 41/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 8/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 51/100.