American Urogynecologic Society

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
953388558
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Silver Spring, MD, USA
Phone
3012730570
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,837,868
Expenses
$3,490,237
Assets
$4,175,013
Liabilities
$1,076,340

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

Leadership & pay

19 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • TANAZ FERZANDI MD PRES-ELECT (UNTIL DEC. 2024, THEN PRESIDENT)
  • CATHERINE BRADLEY MD (IMM. PAST PRESIDENT UNTIL DEC. 2024)
  • STACEY BARNES (CEO AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • STACEY BARNES (CEO AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $220,698 total reported compensation
  • WEIYI ZHAO (SENIOR DIRECTOR, EDUCATION): $166,026 total reported compensation
  • JENNIFER DEAN SR DIRECTOR (GOVERNANCE AND ENGAGEMENT): $137,904 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To promote the highest quality care in urogynecology and reconstructive pelvic surgery through excellence in education, research and advocacy.

What it reported doing in 2024

Educational programs - the society provides multiple educational programs as follows: online learning - the society's online educational platform provides members and nonmembers with access to various educational resources, including surgical videos, webinars, e-posters, self-assessment tools, and on-demand content from the annual scientific meeting.urogynecology for the advanced practice provider - this course is geared towards pas, nps, nurses, and physical therapists who practice in the field of urogynecology and reconstructive pelvic surgery. The course highlights the current evaluation of and latest emerging treatment options for urogynecologic disorders and provides opportunities for attendees to interact with faculty during didactic and hands-on sessions. Fellows courses - one in-person course is held annually for urogynecology and reconstructive pelvic surgery ("urps") fellows, the fellows hands on course. The course provides hands-on surgical training to one or two fellows from each fellowship program. Fellow participation is based on an application and program membership.self-assessment fellows exam - the self-assessment fellows exam ("safe") is a web-based assessment tool designed for fpmrs fellows and programs. The exam is designed to test objectives found in the abog guide to learning and to encourage self-study.comprehensive review, latest techniques and emerging trends - this virtual course provides physicians with a broad overview of fpmrs topics, and focuses on reviewing advanced techniques for complex, challenging clinical scenarios.clinical meeting - surgical experts from urogynecology and reconstructive pelvic surgery, urology, and gynecology come together in one forum to provide expert advice on challenging patient scenarios. In addition, the course discusses emerging modalities for outpatient treatments, including energy-based treatment of vaginal atrophy and stress incontinence. Finally, an interactive session focused on challenging cases provided by audience members makes this course useful in providing solutions for "the difficult case" in member practices.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 69% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 95% 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. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 58
  • Transparency & Controls: 81
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 47
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 63.3%; rating input score 63
  • Program expense ratio: 69.9%; rating input score 70
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 81.7%; rating input score 82; 22nd 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: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • 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: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 9.1%; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.2; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.26; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 18.8%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -3.2% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.4% per year; rating input score 100; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3.6% per year; rating input score 100; 27th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 63.3% of revenue deployed · 69.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 5 filed program accomplishments · $2.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $221K · 19 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 4 contractors listed · $906K reported
  • Consistency: 35 of 36 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 9 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 5 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 43/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 13/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 38/100.