American Board of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 420859627
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2012–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025
- Location
- Chicago, IL, USA
- Phone
- 3126420070
- Rating
- 62
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $5,900,056
- Expenses
- $4,906,899
- Assets
- $20,389,841
- Liabilities
- $2,041,849
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
14 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- DEEPAK KADEMANI DMD MD FACS (PRESIDENT)
- PUSHKAR MEHRA DMD MS (IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT THRU 09/25)
- PAUL S TIWANA DDS MD FACS (VICE PRESIDENT)
- DAVID B POWERS DMD MD FACS FRCS (IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT)
- CHRISTINA TOMASO (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)
- ERIN KILLEEN (EXECUTIVE VICE-PRESIDENT THRU 6/1/2025)
Highest reported compensation
- CHRISTINA TOMASO (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER): $340,004 total reported compensation
- ADRIANNA LAGUNAS (VP,CERTIFICATION PROGRAM): $275,930 total reported compensation
- COURTNEY WALSH (DIRECTOR OF CERT AND MARKETING THRU 9/30/25): $183,950 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To assure the public of safe and optimal care through the development and maintenance of high standards of certification and re-certification of diplomates in the specialty.
What it reported doing in 2025
The organizaiton provided 3 main examinations which include the oral certifying examination, the qualifying examination (qe), and the oral and maxillofcacial surgery in-service training examination (omsite). Additional information for each exam is provided in detail in schedule o.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 87% 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 - 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: 42
- Transparency & Controls: 71
- Accountability: 88
- Sustainability: 62
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 42.3%; rating input score 42
- Program expense ratio: 57%; rating input score 57
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Pass
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 87.5%; rating input score 88; 20th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
- 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: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 16.8%; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.16; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.1; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 23.2%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -0.1% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 4.4% per year; rating input score 100; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 9.1% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 42.3% of revenue deployed · 57% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 7 of 8 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.8M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $340K · 14 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 3 contractors listed · $704K reported
- Consistency: 32 of 32 current checks pass
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes executive pay
- Filing history: 14 filing years from 2012 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 14 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.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 42/100.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 57/100.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 12/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 48/100.