American Partnership for Eosinophilic Disorders

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
760700153
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Atlanta, GA, USA
Phone
7134937749
Rating
89
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Specifically Named Diseases Research

Reported finances

Revenue
$846,943
Expenses
$872,374
Assets
$715,528
Liabilities
$8,821

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MARY JO STROBEL (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • WENDY M BOOK (PRESIDENT)
  • ELIZABETH MCCARTY (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • MARY JO STROBEL (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $102,784 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Apfed is dedicated to improving the lives of people living with eosinophil-associated diseases through education, awareness, research, advocacy, and support initiatives that advance earlier diagnosis, improved care, and better outcomes for patients and families.

What it reported doing in 2025

Research: apfed awarded two researchers each a $100,000 2-year hope pilot grant to support projects focused on non-invasive biomarkers for eoe and molecular drivers of heterogeneity in egpa and asthma, sponsored abstract awards to support early-career investigators, and provided support to the international eosinophil society professional symposium for researchers and clinicians. Apfed co-authored four research abstracts presented at aaaai and ddw, including a ddw blue ribbon poster of distinction, co-authored a publication on hypereosinophilic syndromes burden in jaci global, informed patients of research opportunities, collaborated with cegir, and participated in advocacy and research collaborative initiatives.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 94% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 65% for direct work, and 35% for grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 93
  • Transparency & Controls: 88
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 32
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 95.8%; rating input score 96
  • Program expense ratio: 92.9%; rating input score 93
  • Fundraising efficiency: $50.69 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 92.2%; rating input score 92; 43rd 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: Fail
    • 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: -3%; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.82; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 11.8%; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4.4% per year; rating input score 100; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.4% per year; rating input score 100; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3% per year; rating input score 100; 27th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 95.8% of revenue deployed · 92.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $810K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $103K · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 23 of 25 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2013 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 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.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 23/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: CEO compensation review process not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 37/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 32/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 58/100.