International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
133810997
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Mount Royal, NJ, USA
Phone
6036432325
Rating
57
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Arts, Culture, and Humanities N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$5,257,486
Expenses
$3,680,458
Assets
$11,220,539
Liabilities
$1,904,953

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ARTURO RAMIERZ-MONTANANA (PRESIDENT)
  • PARASKEVAS VAKIS KONTOES (PRESIDENT-ELECT)
  • LINA TRIANA (PAST PRESIDENT)
  • SARAH JOHNSON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • SARAH JOHNSON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $213,119 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Isaps works to promote safe and effective aesthetic procedures and improved quality of life for patients worldwide through organizing and disseminating aesthetic education worldwide, promoting patient safety, protecting high ethical standards, publishing quality research, and communicating its work broadly within and beyond its specialty.

What it reported doing in 2024

World congress and other educational events - isaps' world congress is held for the purpose for safe and effective aesthetic procedures and improved quality of life for all patients worldwide and allows members to experience the science behind aesthetic surgical and non-surgical treatements, techical pearls, live surgeries, new technologies and innovations, how to deal with possible complications, patient safety panels, busines school and leadership academy alternatives as part of a dynamic scientific program for knowledge interchange. Other educational events are held to further aesthetic education worldwide.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 96% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
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

MIXED - Most voting board members are independent and revenue comfortably covers expenses. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 43
  • Transparency & Controls: 50
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 73
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 43.6%; rating input score 44
  • Program expense ratio: 55.1%; rating input score 55
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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; 63rd 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: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 30%; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.05; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.17; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.8%; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -0.3% per year; rating input score 0; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.1% per year; rating input score 100; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 14.3% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 43.6% of revenue deployed · 55.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $213K · 14 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 3 contractors listed · $1.1M reported
  • Consistency: 27 of 27 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes foreign activity
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 44/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 55/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 48/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 48/100.