Iec Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
472735839
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2014
Location
Schaumburg, IL, USA
Phone
8883823724
Rating
61
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Specifically Named Diseases

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$36,381
Expenses
$57,895
Assets
$2,533,919
Liabilities
$16,625

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Alan Irvine (President)
  • Robert Bissonnette (Past President)
  • LAWRENCE F EICHENFIELD (President Elect)

Highest reported compensation

  • Alan Stiles (Executive Dir.): $212,098 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The Organization brings together dermatology experts on eczema to attain the following goals:- Grow and strengthen relationships that support and engage the global IEC community.- Elevate the expert voice of IEC globally to improve outcomes for patients.- Expand IECs impact on the evolution of global, evidence-based knowledge in atopicdermatitis.- Magnify IECs thought leadership position in physician education by expanding contentand delivery channels.

What it reported doing in 2024

In 2024, the International Eczema Council Foundation (IECF) developed and published four peer-review manuscripts Additionally, IECF selected three fellows to participate in the fellowship programs: Mariana Guzman, MD from Chile, for the International Clinical Fellowship; Arbie Sofia Merilleno, MD, from the Philippines, for the MDRI/IEC Canadian Research Fellowship; and Vijaytha Muralidharan, MBChB MRCP, from the United Kingdom, for the US Clinical Fellowship.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and a relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 40
  • Transparency & Controls: 77
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 44
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 56.5%; rating input score 57
  • Program expense ratio: 25.3%; rating input score 25
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -59.1%; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 43.77; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 36.6%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -2% per year; rating input score 0; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -12.8% per year; rating input score 0; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 11.7% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 56.5% of revenue deployed · 25.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $15K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $212K · 14 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 28 of 28 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2015 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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: Program expense ratio scored 25/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 57/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 27/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 9/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 30/100.