Texas Radiological Society a Chapter
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 751071973
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2014–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025
- Location
- San Antonio, TX, USA
- Phone
- 5125354920
- Rating
- 51
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $676,508
- Expenses
- $623,322
- Assets
- $2,095,950
- Liabilities
- $164,759
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
8 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- JAY PARIKH MD (PRESIDENT)
- SUSANNA SPENCE MD (PRESIDENT ELECT)
- MELLISSA CHEN MD (1ST VICE PRESIDENT)
- MARK AMSBAUGH MD (2ND VICE PRESIDENT)
- RAJ SHAH MD (PAST PRESIDENT)
- CHRISTY MCDONALD (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- CHRISTY MCDONALD (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $136,245 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The mission of the Texas radiological society, as a chapter of the american college of radiology, is to serve, promote and advance the profession of radiology in Texas.
What it reported doing in 2025
A few ways in which the trs achieves its mission: - an annual meeting providing up to 20 hours of cme, sam, ethics, rli, mep & modality credits for diagnostic radiologists, radiation oncologist, medical physicists and members in training. - timely radiology related news and updates via a newsletter and e-mails. - advancing education in economics and changes in physician reimbursement. - maintaining physican rights. - obtaining medicare and medicaid coverage for important studies such as low-dose ct screening and breast tomosynthesis. - enhanced communication among fellow radiologists via a new interactive trs website. - ensuring radiologists are represented at regulatory agencies such as the rad tech medical physics, and rvs update committees.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 77% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- 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 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: 0
- Transparency & Controls: 90
- Accountability: 90
- Sustainability: 53
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
- Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- 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: 7.9%; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.36; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.08; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 21.9%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: 4.6% per year; rating input score 100; 35th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 9.4% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
- Leadership: top reported pay $136K · 8 people listed
- Consistency: 11 of 28 current checks pass · 17 findings to review
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules
- Filing history: 11 filing years from 2014 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 2 filed related-organization links
- 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.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
- Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 52/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Advertising column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX CompCurrentOfficersDirectors column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX ConferencesMeetings column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesAccounting column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesInvstMgmntFees column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesLegal column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesOther column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX InformationTechnology column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Insurance column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Occupancy column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX OfficeExpenses column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX OtherEmployeeBenefits column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX OtherSalariesAndWages column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX PayrollTaxes column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX PensionPlanContributions column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Travel column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 14/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 38/100.