The American Board of Obesity Medicine

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
841379986
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Denver, CO, USA
Phone
3037709100
Rating
60
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Chambers of Commerce & Business Leagues

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,765,042
Expenses
$1,956,542
Assets
$8,432,143
Liabilities
$68

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

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DANA BRITTAN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • DANA BRITTAN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $178,200 total reported compensation
  • KIMBERLY GUDZUNE (MEDICAL DIRECTOR): $106,333 total reported compensation
  • STACY SCHMIDT (DIRECTOR OF PROGRAMS): $99,340 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 american board of obesity medicine (abom) serves the public and the field of obesity medicine by maintaining standards for assessment and credentialing physicians. Certification as an abom diplomate signifies specialized knowledge in the practice of obesity medicine and distinguishes a physician as having achieved competency in obesity care.

What it reported doing in 2024

Certification examination in obesity medicine obesity is the most prevalent chronic disease in our society. Yet, many physicians are not trained in how to manage it. The american board of obesity medicine (abom) certifies physicians looking to bridge this gap. The abom administers a 200-question examination once per year to physician candidates.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 95% 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

SUPPORTED - Most voting board members are independent and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 37
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 79
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 30%; rating input score 30
  • Program expense ratio: 61%; rating input score 61
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

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: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 48%; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.31; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 23.4%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 8.7% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 15.9% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 19.9% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 30% of revenue deployed · 61% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $1.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $178K · 16 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 25 of 25 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2018 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

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

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 30/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 9/100.