International Confederation of Plastic

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
203685807
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2012
Forms available
Form 990 2012
Location
Minneapolis, MN, USA
Phone
6126250697
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Surgery Specialties

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$685,939
Expenses
$548,192
Assets
$34,199
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2012. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2012. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The purpose of ipras shall be to promote the art and science of plastic surgery, to support plastic surgery societies and their members all over the world, to further plastic surgery education and research, to provide care for patients in need worldwide and to encourage friendship among plastic surgeons and physicians of all countries.

What it reported doing in 2012

Ipras support of worldwide annual congresses of plastic reconstructive and aesthetic surgery. Congresses in 2012 include the 1st congress of the international society of plastic regenerative surgery (ispres) in rome, italy, in march of 2012; the 3rd central asian plastic surgergy conference in tashkent, uzbekistan, in may of 2012; the 12th congress of the romanian association of plastic surgeons in sinaia, romania in september of 2012; the ipras course on state of the art fat transplantation regenerative plastic surgery and microsurgery in sinaia, romania, in september of 2012; and the 10th iquam consensus conference and 1st ipras international trainees' meeting in athens, greece, in november of 2012. Additionally, ipras participated in various conferences by setting up an informational booth at the isaps congress in geneva, switzerland, in september of 2012; the asps plastic surgery meeting in new orleans, united states, in october of 2012; the turkish society of plastic reconstructive and aesthetic surgery congress in antalya, turkey, in october of 2012; and the brazilian society of plastic surgery conference in porto alegre, brazil, in november of 2012.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 93% 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: 50
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 61
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

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

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Grant itemization coverage: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 20.1%; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.06; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 56% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -53.3% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $357K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 9 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed
  • Consistency: 15 of 15 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes foreign activity
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2010 to 2012
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 3/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.