Georgia Society of Dermatology and Dermatologic Surgery

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
581333683
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Norcross, GA, USA
Phone
7706130932
Rating confidence
Limited

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,490,162
Expenses
$1,639,342
Assets
$3,009,336
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • TARA MORRISON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • TANDA LANE MD (IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT)
  • MATTHEW BELCHER MD (PRESIDENT)
  • FIRAS HOUGEIR MD (PAST PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • TARA MORRISON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • TANDA LANE MD (IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT)
  • MATTHEW BELCHER MD (PRESIDENT)

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

The Georgia society of dermatology and dermatologic surgery shall promote the practice of quality medical and surgical dermatology, as well as dermatopathology, by supporting a collegial environmnet in which the dermatologists, dermatologic surgeons, and dermatopathologists throughout the state of Georgia shall interact to: further education, promote skin health and patient access to quality care, and organize politically to ensure that the highest quality of dermatologic care remains available in our state and in our country.

What it reported doing in 2025

The society provides an annual educational symposium to members each year in addition to networking opportunities, and advocacy efforts for the advancement of the field of dermatology. The meeting topics are related to dermatology and dermatological surgery issues were discussed. These topics include vasculitis, oral ulcers, demonstrating cutaneous clues to a systemic disease, blastic plasmacytoid dendritic cell neoplasm, merkel-cell incidentaloma, leprosy, new drugs in dermatology, innovations in medicine, and malpractice concerns for dermatologists.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 92% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program 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

- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
  • Transparency & Controls: 79
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 44
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • Program expense ratio: Limited
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 87.5%; rating input score 88; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: No; rating input score 0

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: -10%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.84; rating input score 62; 62nd 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: 15.9% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 21.7% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 7 of 8 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2011 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 13/100.