American Glaucoma Society Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
273868699
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2013
Location
San Francisco, CA, USA
Phone
4155618587
Rating
84
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Ear and Throat Diseases

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$397,004
Expenses
$300,647
Assets
$490,495
Liabilities
$9,698

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

Leadership & pay

28 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LEON W HERNDON JR MD (PRES THRU 3/2024 / PAST PRESIDENT)
  • STEVEN J GEDDE MD (VICE PRESIDENT START 3/2024)
  • RONALD L FELLMAN MD (PAST PRESIDENT THRU 3/2024)
  • CHRISTOPHER A GIRKIN MD MSPH (PAST PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • LEON W HERNDON JR MD (PRES THRU 3/2024 / PAST PRESIDENT)
  • CARLA J SIEGFRIED MD (VP THRU 3/2024 / PRES START 3/2024)
  • STEVEN J GEDDE MD (VICE PRESIDENT START 3/2024)

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

To support glaucoma research and education, and to promote excellence in the care of patients with glaucoma.

What it reported doing in 2024

Agsf provided ags $150,000 in funding to support research and education programs sponsored by ags aimed at making a significant impact in the fight to prevent blindness and visual impairment. Examples include: (i) grants to young clinician scientists to encourage the development of young clinician scientists in glaucoma by providing funding for research projects within the first 5 years after graduation, and (ii) grants to mid-career physician scientists to allow mid-career (between 5 and 20 years after fellowship) to initiate new research or continue ongoing research.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 99% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

STRONG - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Some filed totals do not add up and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 69
  • Transparency & Controls: 95
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 65
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 69.5%; rating input score 69
  • Program expense ratio: 91.5%; rating input score 91
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 98.2%; rating input score 98; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 24.3%; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.63; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0.9% per year; rating input score 100; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.9% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 9% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 69.5% of revenue deployed · 91.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 21 of 21 board members independent · 7 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $275K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 28 people listed
  • Consistency: 19 of 20 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and related organizations
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2014 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 2 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.

  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 54/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 40/100.