American College of Phlebology

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
330180128
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2016
Forms available
Form 990 2016
Location
San Leandro, CA, USA
Phone
5103466800
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Professional Societies, Associations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,076,321
Expenses
$2,487,276
Assets
$1,585,588
Liabilities
$763,564

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Mark D Forrestal MD FACPh (President)
  • Neil M Khilnani MD FACPh (President-Elect)
  • Melvin Rosenblatt MD FACPh (Past President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Keith Darby (Interim Exe Dir): $133,638 total reported compensation
  • Bruce Sanders (Past Exec Dir): $33,375 total reported compensation
  • Dean Bender (Exec Director): $6,846 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To advance vein care. To be members indispensable resource for education, knowledge exchange, and practice management; a powerful advocate for excellence in vein care; and a leader in basic and clinical research in vein care.

What it reported doing in 2016

Continuing Medical Education - The ACP is an experienced and recognized leader in developing quality educational activities for physicians and allied health professionals involved in the evaluation and treatment of venous diseases. Participation in the ACPs accredited CME program allows practitioners and allied health professionals specializing in phlebology to continually improve the quality of their practice and patient care, as well as maintain licensure and board certification. The ACP is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) to provide continuing medical education (CME) for physicians. ACCME accreditation is a national standard, ensuring that continuing medical education is consistent, effective and current.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 93% of the money available for current operations came from other operating 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. Expenses are high relative to revenue and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 67
  • Transparency & Controls: 78
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 19
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 81.5%; rating input score 81
  • Program expense ratio: 67.3%; rating input score 67
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Limited
    • Conducts field audits: Limited
    • May suspend future funding: Limited
    • Requires financial reports: Limited
    • Conducts site visits: Limited
    • Requires grant agreements: Limited
    • May require repayment: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 71st 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; 64th 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: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -19.8%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.64; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.48; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 7%; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -13.5% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.4% per year; rating input score 100; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.6% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 81.5% of revenue deployed · 67.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $134K · 16 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $974K reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 32 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2009 to 2016
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 6/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 30/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 27/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 35/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization is not authorized to operate as a charity in California.