Aesthetic Surgery Education and Research Foundation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 330613185
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2011–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Garden Grove, CA, USA
- Phone
- 5627992356
- Rating
- 72
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Arts, Culture, and Humanities N.E.C.
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $931,518
- Expenses
- $1,444,942
- Assets
- $4,206,828
- Liabilities
- $827,033
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
17 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- ONELIO GARCIA MD (PRESIDENT)
- PATRICIA A MCGURIE MD (PRESIDENT-ELECT)
- KIYA MOVASSAGHI MD (ASAPS PRESIDENT)
- TRACY PFEIFER MD (ASAPS PRESIDENT-ELECT)
- JAMIL AHMAD MD (ASAPS VICE-PRESIDENT)
- DAVID A SIEBER MD (VICE PRESIDENT)
Highest reported compensation
- MARK THEIS (CEO): $481,000 total reported compensation
- COURTNEY MUEHLEBACH (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $241,822 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To identiy and pursue those issues relevant to advancing the safety and effectiveness of aesthetic medicine through independent, unbiased, directed research and groundbreaking education.
What it reported doing in 2024
The purpose of the foundation is to identify and pursue issues relevant to the effectiveness and safety of aesthetic surgery techniques and technology through directed research and education, to provide grants funds to support research related to aesthetic plastic surgery, and conduct annual meetings with members.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 63% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Cannot be determined from the filing. The program-spending lines do not add up, so the filing cannot show reliably whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 69
- Transparency & Controls: 63
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 33
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 90.5%; rating input score 90
- Program expense ratio: 57.5%; rating input score 58
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 88.2%; rating input score 88; 3rd 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: 82.7%; rating input score 83; 35th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Fail
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -55.1%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.91; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.2; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 4.5%; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 3.7% per year; rating input score 100; 35th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 5.8% per year; rating input score 100; 48th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 5.6% per year; rating input score 100; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 90.5% of revenue deployed · 57.5% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 16 of 16 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $832K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $481K · 17 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 24 of 26 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- 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.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 58/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 3/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: CEO compensation review process not reported.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 32/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 54/100.