American College of Veterinary Dermatology

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
371122882
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Nevada City, CA, USA
Phone
6199956572
Rating
52
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$714,173
Expenses
$419,468
Assets
$2,700,759
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ANDREW ROSENBERG (President)
  • ALISON DIESEL (PRESIDENT ELECT)
  • ANTHEA SCHICK (PAST PRESIDENT)
  • ADAM PATTERSON (PAST PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • ANDREW ROSENBERG (President)
  • ALISON DIESEL (PRESIDENT ELECT)
  • ANTHEA SCHICK (PAST 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 ACVD examines qualified candidates and confers Diplomate status in veterinary dermatology.

What it reported doing in 2024

American college of veterinary dermatology (the "college") sets standards and provides a forum for discussion and advanced learning in the field of veterinary dermatology. The college administers exams to test and ultimately award memberships. The exam is one of the only exams in the world in the field of veterinary dermatology. The college also oversees resident training programs.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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: 94
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 88
  • 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 99.1%; rating input score 99; 48th 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: 4 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 57
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • 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: 41.3%; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.44; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -38.2% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.9% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.6% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 1 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 4 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 11 of 12 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 3 filed related-organization links
  • 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.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.