Armed Forces Optometric Society

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
521034119
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2023
Forms available
Form 990 2023, Form 990-EZ 2010
Location
Broomfield, CO, USA
Phone
7204428209
Rating
46
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$415,990
Expenses
$451,670
Assets
$96,776
Liabilities
$18,490

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

18 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • H Lindsay Wright (Executive Director)
  • Dr Emily Sprague (Past President)
  • Dr Meghan Elkins (President Elect)
  • Dr Greg Smith (President)
  • Dr Christopher Alferez (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • H Lindsay Wright (Executive Director): $158,151 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The Armed Forces Optometric Society AFOS is the AOA Affiliate for all Federal services optometrists. Our members include those serving in the US military Air Force Army and Navy and their reserve components Veterans Administration Public Health Service and Indian Health Service as well as various other governmental entities.

What it reported doing in 2023

AFOS provides two national meetings each year for our member doctors. These national meetings provide essential continuing education that is required for military or federal service optometrists. In addition these meetings provide a forum for key suppliers to exhibit and display the lates ophthalmic technology to our members. This enables each member to have exposure to the leading edge instrumentation which will assist their unit command in selecting the appropriate equipment to deliver the best eye care for military personnel and military veterans across the nation.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 100% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
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: 82
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 19
  • Growth: 40

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: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: -8.6%; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.21; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.19; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 35%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 4.2% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -5.5% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 17 of 17 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $158K · 18 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 42 current checks pass · 13 findings to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2012 to 2023
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 26/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 12/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 8/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 21/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Advertising column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX AllOtherExpenses column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX CompCurrentOfficersDirectors column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX ConferencesMeetings column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesAccounting column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesOther column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Insurance column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Occupancy column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX OfficeExpenses column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX OtherSalariesAndWages column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX PayrollTaxes column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Travel column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.