International Society of Dermatology
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 136114051
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025
- Location
- Dallas, TX, USA
- Phone
- 2143601500
- Rating
- 66
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $927,675
- Expenses
- $541,899
- Assets
- $2,001,012
- Liabilities
- $66,095
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
32 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Martin Kassir MD (President)
- Nellie Konnikov MD (Past-President)
- Veronika Slonkov (Vice President)
People named in this filing
- Martin Kassir MD (President)
- Razzaque Ahmed MD (Exec Vice-Pres)
- Nellie Konnikov MD (Past-President)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
ISDs mission is to improve care through sharing knowledge, increasing professionalism, and bringing together the diverse, global dermatology community.
What it reported doing in 2025
ISD Mentorship Program - The ISD Mentorship Award Program enacts ISDs vision to improve care through sharing knowledge, increasing professionalism, and bringing together the diverse global dermatology community. It provides enriched networking opportunities and observational mentorship for a duration of 4-6 weeks.It connects dermatologists (Board certified) and residents (still undergoing training) in all corners of the world with recognized professional leaders worldwide. It aims to enhance the mentees knowledge and experience on patient care and treatment as well as immersion in new trends and advancement in dermatology. Upon completion of the program, ISD hopes that all mentees will share and pass forward their gained knowledge and experience to their local communities and other professionals in the fields of dermatology to enhance further the impact on patient care.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 96% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 80% for direct work, and 20% for grants.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - 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 the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 47
- Transparency & Controls: 64
- Accountability: 94
- Sustainability: 79
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 40.5%; rating input score 41
- Program expense ratio: 71.9%; rating input score 72
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
- Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
- Requires narrative reports: Limited
- Conducts field audits: Limited
- May suspend future funding: Limited
- Requires financial reports: Limited
- Conducts site visits: Limited
- Requires grant agreements: Limited
- May require repayment: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 50%; rating input score 50; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 6 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 86
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- 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: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 41.6%; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.69; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 2.5% per year; rating input score 100; 25th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 3.2% per year; rating input score 100; 26th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 3.6% per year; rating input score 100; 29th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 40.5% of revenue deployed · 71.9% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 32 of 32 board members independent · 6 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 5 filed program accomplishments · $389K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 32 people listed
- Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $308K reported
- Consistency: 28 of 28 current checks pass
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes foreign activity
- Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2025
- 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 41/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 50/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 48/100.