Society for Pediatric Sedation Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 260357649
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025, Form 990-T 2021, Form 990-N 2007
- Location
- Richmond, VA, USA
- Phone
- 8045656354
- Rating
- 66
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Professional Societies, Associations
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $555,762
- Expenses
- $501,394
- Assets
- $851,543
- Liabilities
- $146,367
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
15 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- PRADIP KAMAT MD MBA FCCM (PRESIDENT)
- VANESSA OLBRECHT MD (PRESIDENT-ELECT)
- MARY LANDRIGAN-OSSAR MD PHD (PAST PRESIDENT)
- STEWART HINCKLEY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
People named in this filing
- PRADIP KAMAT MD MBA FCCM (PRESIDENT)
- VANESSA OLBRECHT MD (PRESIDENT-ELECT)
- DANIEL SEDILLO MD MBA FAAP (SECRETARY/TREASURER)
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
The society will strive to be the international multidisciplinary leader in the advancement of pediatric sedation by promoting safe, high quality care, innovative research and quality professional education.
What it reported doing in 2025
Professional education: annual conference providing multidiscliplinary continuing education for providers of pediatric procedural sedation and sedation provider courses which provide simultation-based training and didactic content focused on patient selection, patient safety, pharmacology management and common adverse events.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 96% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 96% 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 most voting board members are independent. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 62
- Transparency & Controls: 55
- Accountability: 82
- Sustainability: 56
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 66.5%; rating input score 67
- Program expense ratio: 74.4%; rating input score 74
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 81.8%; rating input score 82; 1st 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: 4 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 57
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- 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: 9.8%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.7; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.17; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 6.3% per year; rating input score 100; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 5.2% per year; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 6% per year; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 66.5% of revenue deployed · 74.4% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 4 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 5 filed program accomplishments · $373K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 15 people listed
- Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $173K reported
- Consistency: 24 of 26 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
- Schedules: 4 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.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 50/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 6 not reported.
- Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 56/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 59/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 27/100.