North American Society for Cardiovascular Imaging

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
916185408
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
East Dundee, IL, USA
Phone
8477526245
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Heart and Circulatory System Diseases, Disorders

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$503,069
Expenses
$462,070
Assets
$323,436
Liabilities
$63,737

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DANIEL VARGAS MD (PRESIDENT)
  • MATTHEW CHAM MD (PRESIDENT-EL)

People named in this filing

  • DANIEL VARGAS MD (PRESIDENT)
  • MATTHEW CHAM MD (PRESIDENT-EL)
  • ELSIE NGUYEN MD (VICE-PRESIDE)

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

North american society for cardiovascular imaging is a scientific, educational and professional organization dedicated to the advancement of cardiovascular imaging. The objectives of the society shall be: to encourage the development and dissemination of knowledge regarding cardiovascular imaging, to contribute to the active continuing education of its membership and the medical community, and to promote the study, research and clinical practice of cardiovascular imaging.

What it reported doing in 2025

The nasci journal provides a scientific forum for everyone working in the field of cardiac and cardiovascular imaging to review articles dealing with the design, development and evaluation of imaging methods used to study cardiovascular diseases.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 90% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 95% 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. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 56
  • Transparency & Controls: 78
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 46
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 60.7%; rating input score 61
  • Program expense ratio: 66.5%; rating input score 66
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 66.7%; rating input score 67; 36th 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: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: 8.1%; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.7; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.2; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6.8% per year; rating input score 100; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.1% per year; rating input score 100; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.1% per year; rating input score 100; 44th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 60.7% of revenue deployed · 66.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $307K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $235K reported
  • Consistency: 21 of 22 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 52/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 33/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 25/100.