Advanced Urology Institute Education and General Fund

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
812404357
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2020
Location
Schaumburg, IL, USA
Phone
8475177225
Rating
47
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Chambers of Commerce & Business Leagues

Reported finances

Revenue
$425,197
Expenses
$308,079
Assets
$680,995
Liabilities
$45,655

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Scott B Sellinger MD FACS (President)
  • Arash Rafiei MD (Vice President)
  • David Harris MD (Vice President)
  • M Scott Klavans MD (Vice President)
  • Rolando Rivera MD FACS (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Scott B Sellinger MD FACS (President)
  • Arash Rafiei MD (Vice President)
  • David Harris MD (Vice President)

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 advanced urology institute education and general fund's mission is to a advance, foster, encourage and promote the study and application of urology b develop and provide information and resources relevant to the advancement of the field of urology c provide a forum for the exchange of ideas among scholars, researchers, and practitioners about urology and develop strategies on issues critical to the advancement of the field in this area of specialty d advance the field of urology to the highest state of innovation, resourcefulness, and preparation for those professionals practicing in the field of urology and e perform any and all acts as are necessary, convenient and proper for the attainment of these purposes.

What it reported doing in 2024

Annual conferences and meetings to promote education and provide resources in the field of urology and to encourage the exchange of information among professionals practicing in the field of urology.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 100% 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: 70
  • Sustainability: 68
  • 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; 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: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • 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: 27.5%; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.21; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.07; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -28.1% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 11.2% per year; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 27.6% per year; rating input score 100; 90th 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 · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 10 of 11 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 1 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2016 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 30/100.