Plastic Surgery Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
596144450
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Arlington Heights, IL, USA
Phone
8472289900
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Surgery Specialties

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,642,115
Expenses
$2,812,438
Assets
$24,960,465
Liabilities
$476,224

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

Leadership & pay

25 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SCOTT HOLLENBECK MD (ASPS PRESIDENT)
  • ALAN MATARASSO MD (PSF PRESIDENT)
  • STEVEN WILLIAMS MD (IMMEDIATE PAST ASPS PRESIDENT)
  • SCOT GLASBERG MD (IMMEDIATE PAST PSF PRESIDENT)
  • GREGORY GRECO DO (IMMEDIATE PAST ASPS PRESIDENT - PAST)
  • HOWARD LEVINSON MD (IMMEDIATE PAST PSF PRESIDENT - PAST)

Highest reported compensation

  • MICHAEL COSTELLOE (EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT): $631,204 total reported compensation
  • GINA MCCLURE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PSF): $373,298 total reported compensation
  • MARK ESPINOSA (SR. VP, CFO): $345,919 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 psf promotes the highest standards in research and education for plastic surgery, our members, and their patients.

What it reported doing in 2024

To develop and support the domestic and international research and public service activities of plastic surgeons through educational grants and research awards.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 79% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 67% for direct work, and 33% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 73
  • Transparency & Controls: 66
  • Accountability: 80
  • Sustainability: 79
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 75%; rating input score 75
  • Program expense ratio: 80.4%; rating input score 80
  • Fundraising efficiency: $11.71 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 23rd 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: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Pass
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Pass
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Pass
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 99.3%; rating input score 99; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 81.2%; rating input score 81; 15th 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: 22.8%; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 8.88; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.4%; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3% per year; rating input score 100; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.6% per year; rating input score 100; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.1% per year; rating input score 100; 29th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 75% of revenue deployed · 80.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 16 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $631K · 25 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 33 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 20 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 21 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 43/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 4 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 51/100.