Global Parents for Eczema Research
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 853151222
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2021–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025
- Location
- Santa Barbara, CA, USA
- Phone
- 8052324479
- Rating
- 73
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Health, General and Financing
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $512,698
- Expenses
- $429,633
- Assets
- $860,454
- Liabilities
- $73,677
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
6 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Korey Capozza (Executive Director)
Highest reported compensation
- Korey Capozza (Executive Director): $97,984 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To end the suffering of children with eczema by advancing breakthroughs in research & empowering families.
What it reported doing in 2025
Global Parents for Eczema Research (GPER) expanded its caregiver-led research and support initiatives to improve outcomes for children with eczema and their families. In 2025, GPER served more than 1,500 parents and caregivers through global support programs. The organization authored or contributed to six peer-reviewed research publications and produced 14 science-based podcast episodes with more than 43,000 downloads.GPER continued development of ECZHALE: The Eczema Wellness Hub, a digital resource providing caregivers with 23+ evidence-based tools and mental health coping strategies. The organization also developed and distributed over 500 eczema education coloring books across three continents, 12 U.S. states, and 23 physician offices.GPER funded four research grants totaling $100,000 and hosted the 4th Annual Childhood Eczema Prevention Research Symposium, "Predicting and Stopping Eczema in Early Life," in Santa Barbara, CA. GPER also represented patient perspectives at 10 conferences in four countries and six states, while 12 companies participated in its Corporate Council supporting patient-centered research and collaboration.
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 74% for direct work, and 26% for grants.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 78
- Transparency & Controls: 61
- Accountability: 90
- Sustainability: 56
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 75.5%; rating input score 75
- Program expense ratio: 88.2%; rating input score 88
- Fundraising efficiency: $32.2 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 10th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Scored; rating input score 0
- Grant itemization coverage: 50%; rating input score 50; 33rd 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: 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: 16.2%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 2; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.09; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 22.8%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 2.3% per year; rating input score 100; 24th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -14.1% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 13.1% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 75.5% of revenue deployed · 88.2% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $379K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $98K · 6 people listed
- Consistency: 25 of 26 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and grants
- Filing history: 5 filing years from 2021 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
- 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.
- Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 50/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 13/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 37/100.