International Pain and Spine Intervention Society Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 943160988
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2011–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
- Location
- Hinsdale, IL, USA
- Phone
- 6302032252
- Rating
- 77
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Private Grantmaking Foundations
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $3,894,282
- Expenses
- $3,449,580
- Assets
- $9,560,952
- Liabilities
- $1,205,886
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
22 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- ALISON STOUT DO (VICE PRESIDENT)
- DAVID J KENNEDY MD (PAST PRESIDENT)
- JOSHUA RITTENBERG MD (PRESIDENT)
- MARGARET KLYS MJ CAE (CEO/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- MARGARET KLYS MJ CAE (CEO/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $318,082 total reported compensation
- BELINDA DUSZYNSKI (DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH & QUALITY IMPROVEMENT): $212,247 total reported compensation
- ANNE ROUNDS (DIRECTOR OF MEETINGS & INDUSTRY RELATIONS): $187,577 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To lead the advancement of science and standards for interventional pain medicine
What it reported doing in 2024
The organization provides interventional pain education for physicians in the form of conferences, hands-on bio-skills labs, publications, and online learning.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 87% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 98% 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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration and some filed totals do not add up.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 73
- Transparency & Controls: 67
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 59
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 79.4%; rating input score 79
- Program expense ratio: 88%; rating input score 88
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 86.7%; rating input score 87; 2nd 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: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
- Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
- Requires narrative reports: Limited
- Conducts field audits: Limited
- May suspend future funding: Limited
- Requires financial reports: Pass
- Conducts site visits: Limited
- Requires grant agreements: Limited
- May require repayment: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 85.1%; rating input score 85; 23rd 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
- 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: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 11.4%; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.77; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.13; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 28.4%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 1.9% per year; rating input score 100; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 1.2% per year; rating input score 100; 16th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 5.5% per year; rating input score 100; 37th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 79.4% of revenue deployed · 88% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 17 of 17 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $3M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $318K · 22 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $938K reported
- Consistency: 34 of 37 current checks pass · 3 findings to review
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 12 filing years from 2011 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 7 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 2 filed related-organization links
- 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 — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 6/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 54/100.