Eye Surgeons International

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
933466097
IRS 990 coverage
2025–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2024
Location
Napa, CA, USA
Phone
7072871955
Rating
46
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Eye Diseases, Blindness and Vision Impairments

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,135,430
Expenses
$48,759
Assets
$1,166,833
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

2 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • John Bosetti (President)

People named in this filing

  • John Bosetti (President)
  • Nancy Jameson (Secretary)

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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

This organization raises funds from the public to provide and facilitate vision saving medical care to underserved people in the USA and abroad via volunteer ophthalmologists optometrists and supporting staff who provide direct care as well as train local providers. We provide necessary equipment medications and supplies. We provide charitable care directly and educate local caregivers of underserved people. We support other nonprofits with infrastructure in place especially in foreign countries.

What it reported doing in 2025

Planning and development for modernizing the Zimba Eye Care facility in Zimba Zambia. This facility will provide emergency care for traumatic eye injuries as well as care for chronic debilitating eye disease. Consensus among volunteer doctors and local staff for engagement of Engineering Ministries for planning and design of a healthcare clinic that will expand medical and surgical care for local people. The facility will also be a regional site for educating Zambian eye doctors and health care providers.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 56% for direct work, and 44% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue comfortably covers expenses. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 38
  • Transparency & Controls: 68
  • Accountability: 30
  • Sustainability: 95
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 3.4%; rating input score 3
  • Program expense ratio: 79.5%; rating input score 79
  • Fundraising efficiency: $192.56 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Fail
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 96.1%; rating input score 96; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 95.7%; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 23.93; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: 3.4% of revenue deployed · 79.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 2 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $39K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 2 people listed
  • Consistency: 45 of 47 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and grants
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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 3/100.
  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 8 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.