Alliance for Safe Online Pharmacies

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
463155025
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2023127438
Rating
58
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Professional Societies, Associations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,130,129
Expenses
$537,551
Assets
$598,776
Liabilities
$78,818

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CARRIE HARNEY (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • CARRIE HARNEY (PRESIDENT)
  • JOHN HERTIG (SECRETARY)
  • JEFFREY GREN (TREASURER)

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

Asop global is dedicated to addressing the growing public health threat of illegal online drug sellers through strategic efforts around the globe, concentrating its activities in research, education, internet commerce company voluntary actions, and policy and advocacy.

What it reported doing in 2024

Consumer education. Asop continued to invest resources to better develop the available data and research related to consumer and healthcare provider behavior and utilization of online pharmacies and internet-based healthcare services. Results from studies were circulated to key policymakers and stakeholders, and used to engage with media, to highlight the lack of awareness and misconception american consumers have of purchasing drugs online. The significant findings from the survey were included in 10 media pieces and emphasized in over 30 interviews in which asop participated. Asop tracked the de-indexing of domain names on search engine platforms pursuant to fda warning letters with concurrent reviews of the availability and accessibility of potentially counterfeit or substandard products via social media platforms. The findings were shared in various meetings to help key agencies consider a search engine approach to strengthen their ability to take enforcement action against websites mentioned in warning letters.legislative advocacy of legislation which would decrease illegal online drug sales. Asop advised and educated partners and stakeholder organizations (including patients, caregivers, healthcare providers, members of the pharmaceutical supply and distribution chain, regulators, and policymakers) of the risks associated with illegal online pharmacies and threats associated with the importation of prescription drugs from foreign countries. Asop issued 24 press releases and statements on federal actions related to drug importation, access to whois data, fake covid-19 online scams, and more. Asop joined two coalitions with similar policy priorities and participated in advancing the groups' aligned goals and mission. By engaging in roundtable discussions with multi-disciplinary stakeholders, asop had the opportunity to raise the existing supply chain threats and consumer harms to broader and diverse audiences. Educate global health regulators through a series of briefings. Asop actively engaged in domestic and international forums to educate stakeholders and regulators on safe online pharmacy practices, compliance with domestic and international law and practice standards, and development of robust legal and regulatory schemes aimed at ensuring public health and patient safety. Beyond continued engagement with domestic regulators and policymakers, asop engaged with key stakeholders in canada, the eu, and other areas to provide policy briefings and relevant information to these partners.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 77% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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

MIXED - Most voting board members are independent and revenue comfortably covers expenses. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 56
  • Transparency & Controls: 55
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 71
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 44.6%; rating input score 45
  • Program expense ratio: 93.8%; rating input score 94
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Grant itemization coverage: Scored; rating input score 0
  • 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: 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: 52.4%; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.11; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.13; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -14.3% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -9% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -18.4% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 44.6% of revenue deployed · 93.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $504K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 11 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $406K reported
  • Consistency: 18 of 18 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2020 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 45/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 46/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 38/100.