Society of Urologic Nurses and Associates

Legal name: Society of Urologic Nurses and Associates Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
930696206
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024, Form 990-N 2009
Location
Washington, D.C., USA
Phone
202-591-2470
Rating
59
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Professional Societies, Associations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,362,416
Expenses
$1,496,571
Assets
$1,227,637
Liabilities
$1,329,012

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CHRISTY HICKS MS APRN WHNP-BC (PRESIDENT)
  • GLENN SULLY BS RN CURN FAUNA (IMMED PAST PRESIDENT.)

Highest reported compensation

  • CHRISTY HICKS MS APRN WHNP-BC (PRESIDENT): $10,000 total reported compensation
  • GLENN SULLY BS RN CURN FAUNA (IMMED PAST PRESIDENT.): $10,000 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 Society of Urologic Nurses and Associates (SUNA) is a professional organization dedicated to advancing the practice of urologic nursing and improving patient outcomes through education, advocacy, and research.

What it reported doing in 2024

Urogram - (newsletter) to their overall education as urology nurses/education director expenses.including investment income and other related exempt activity income, educational benefit to members, educational consultant.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 84% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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

MIXED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 63
  • Transparency & Controls: 83
  • Accountability: 21
  • Sustainability: 26
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 73.4%; rating input score 73
  • Program expense ratio: 66.8%; rating input score 67
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • 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: -9.8%; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.82; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.08; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 1.3%; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3% per year; rating input score 100; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -0.4% per year; rating input score 0; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.2% per year; rating input score 100; 26th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 12 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 73.4% of revenue deployed · 66.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 7 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $1000K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $10K · 7 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $686K reported
  • Consistency: 20 of 21 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 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.

  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 17/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 36/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 5/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 59/100.