Retinal Science Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
990391847
IRS 990 coverage
2024–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2023
Location
Los Angeles, CA, USA
Phone
3109958056
Rating
64
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Service Organizations

Reported finances

Revenue
$41,243
Expenses
$575,242
Assets
$1,040,140
Liabilities
$305

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • STEVEN D SCHWARTZ (President & CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • STEVEN D SCHWARTZ (President & CEO): $250,000 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Our passion is preventing preventable blindness, and restoring vision to those who have lost it. We advance cures and treatments for blinding eye diseases by developing and accelerating access to new and experiemental ophthalmic, medical, and surgical treatments. We focus on translational and clinical trials research. We study and solve scientific and socioeconomic barriers to quality care with real world evidence-based health care data science coupled with screening programs, digital health solutions, educational programs, clinical trials and care for the underserved.

What it reported doing in 2025

The start-up operations of the foundation are focused on funding grants, conducting research, and assisting young investigator programs, clinical trial centers, and retinal disease screeing programs. During this early stage, the incurred program expenses are investigatory and not specifically allocable to separate programs.

Operating model

Revenue model
Investment-supported. 97% of the money available for current operations came from recurring investment income.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 83% 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. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 68
  • Transparency & Controls: 68
  • Accountability: 69
  • Sustainability: 16
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 35.1%; rating input score 35
  • Fundraising efficiency: $0.03 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 8; 8th 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: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 81st 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: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -1,294.8%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.81; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 43.5%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 146.7% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -190.1% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -42% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 35.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $202K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $250K · 3 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 25 of 25 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2024 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • 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: Program expense ratio scored 35/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 8/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 4/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 36/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 4/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 30/100.