The Mineralogical Record

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
520910349
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-T 2025
Location
Tucson, AZ, US
Phone
520-299-5274
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,421,107
Expenses
$1,342,650
Assets
$2,297,965
Liabilities
$550,711

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • Wendell Wilson (Director): $170,750 total reported compensation
  • Thomas M Gressman (Treasurer/Sec): $122,289 total reported compensation
  • Christopher Stefano (Director): $115,110 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Publication of the Mineralogical Record Magazine Six Times Each Year. The magazine is the most authoritative and widely respected mineral collectors' journal in the world.

The Mineralogical Record is a specimen-oriented publication dedicated to topographical mineralogy, providing in-depth locality articles, research, and news for mineral collectors and museums. It publishes a magazine, books, supplements, and digital content, and maintains an online presence with videos, a biographical archive, and a journal of mining collectibles. The organization serves a global audience of mineral enthusiasts and professionals.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 77% 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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 84
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 56
  • Sustainability: 43
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 92.6%; rating input score 93
  • Program expense ratio: 97.8%; rating input score 98
  • 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: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 55.6%; rating input score 56; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 56
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 5.5%; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.71; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.24; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 32.1%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0.8% per year; rating input score 100; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.2% per year; rating input score 100; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.5% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: Mission, programs, and operating context captured from the official website.
  • Where the money goes: 92.6% of revenue deployed · 97.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 9 board members independent · 5 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $171K · 9 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 31 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 56/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 9 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 46/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 7/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 23/100.