Iec Nfp

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
873158757
IRS 990 coverage
2022–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2021
Location
Schaumburg, IL, USA
Phone
8883823724
Rating
46
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Professional Societies, Associations

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,033,057
Expenses
$870,790
Assets
$1,308,168
Liabilities
$224,383

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 International Eczema Council (IEC) was formed to operate as a professional association serving the educational and other needs and professional interests of dermatologists, researchers, companies and other healthcare professionals and entities involved in the field of atopic dermatitis (AD) and to promote the practice and field of AD. The organizations mission is to Improve patient care by promoting research, education, and best practices in treatment for atopic dermatitis in people worldwide. IEC works to foster collaboration amongst its members, to provide education on AD and the optimal management of AD, and to facilitate research on AD and related areas.

What it reported doing in 2024

In 2024, the International Eczema Council (IEC) hosted 6 in-person symposia to include the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) annual meeting in San Diego, the Reunin Anual de Dermatlogos Latinoamericanos (RADLA) in Lima, Peru; the Society of Investigative Dermatology (SID) annual meeting in Dallas, Texas; the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) annual congress in Valencia, Spain; the European Society for Dermatological Research (ESDR) annual meeting in Lisbon, Portugal, and the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) annual congress in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. As a global community of expert thought leaders in atopic dermatitis research, treatment, and prevention, IECs inclusive and content-rich symposia and subsequent on-demand recordings enable the IEC to fulfill its mission to improve patient care by promoting research, education, and best practices in treatment for atopic dermatitis in people worldwide.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 95% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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: 79
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 55
  • Growth: 20

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: 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: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: 15.7%; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.5; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.17; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 21.9%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -13.1% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 23.4% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $212K · 14 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $445K reported
  • Consistency: 13 of 14 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2022 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: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 56/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 13/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 34/100.