Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
366111168
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Rosemont, IL, USA
Phone
8476786200
Rating
58
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Medical Disciplines Research

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,252,096
Expenses
$1,496,874
Assets
$20,363,906
Liabilities
$722,492

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

Leadership & pay

17 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MS KARIN K WITTICH (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • MS KARIN K WITTICH (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $628,046 total reported compensation
  • MS MARY E SCHNITZER (COO): $329,381 total reported compensation
  • MS KIMBERLY A MOLLEY (CFO): $314,919 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 mission of the oms foundation is to improve the quality and safety of patient care by advancing innovation in oral and maxillofacial surgery research and education.vision: oms patients are receiving the highest quality, safest and most advanced care available. Oms are advancing the specialty through innovative research, practice, and education. Donors and partners are energized by their engagement with the oms foundation. Values: oms foundation believes that as a specialty, oms has an obligation to remain at the forefront of delivering innovative, quality care to patients. Oms foundation believes that basic science, translational, and clinical research done by omss offers the best opportunity to advance care and the specialty. Oms foundation believes in adherence to the highest professional and ethical standards in conducting its business.

What it reported doing in 2024

The global initiative for volunteerism and education (give) program provides residents with stipends to travel internationally with experienced oms teams to deliver humanitarian healthcare to underserved populations. The experience provides hands-on-training to the residents along with providing care to the underserved.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 76% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 85% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

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: 44
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 85
  • Sustainability: 81
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 50.1%; rating input score 50
  • Program expense ratio: 46.4%; rating input score 46
  • Fundraising efficiency: $3.59 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 90%; rating input score 90; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: 54%; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 13.6; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.04; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 18.4%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -3.7% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -0.4% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3.8% per year; rating input score 100; 28th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 50.1% of revenue deployed · 46.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 10 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $694K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $628K · 17 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 31 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 8 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 7 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.

Key Signals

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

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 50/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 46/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 11/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 14/100.