The Glaucoma Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
133174839
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
New York, NY, USA
Phone
2126511900
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Eye Diseases, Blindness and Vision Impairments

Reported finances

Revenue
$5,962,992
Expenses
$3,058,551
Assets
$20,750,332
Liabilities
$1,458,790

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

Leadership & pay

25 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ELENA STURMAN (PRESIDENT &)

Highest reported compensation

  • ELENA STURMAN (PRESIDENT &): $444,333 total reported compensation
  • ELENA CLY FOWKES (DIR OF SPECI): $166,491 total reported compensation
  • ANDREA STEELE (CHIEF OPERAT): $143,035 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The glaucoma foundation, inc. Is an international not-for-profit organization dedicated to eradicating glaucoma, the leading cause of preventable blindness. The strategy to achieve this goal is two-fold: raise public awareness concerning the necessity of routine eye exams, and fund critical research to find cures for glaucoma.

What it reported doing in 2025

1) multiple webinars: what do cold hands have to do with glaucoma? The promise of optic nerve regeneration; the body-eye relationship how to save the sight of patients with glaucoma while minimizing adverse reaction from eye drops; insights into glaucoma & women's health: exploring the impact of menopause and visual function; glaucoma and lifestyle. 2) the optic nerve rescue and restoration think tank "a patient-centric approach while incorporating the latest science" glaucoma data integration: overview of databases available to advance glaucoma knowledge; lessons learned about glaucoma from the uk biobank; poag genomic architecture; a 360-degree biomedical profile of health: lessons from cardiovascular disease. 3) drug re-purposing in glaucoma: insulin signaling and; metformin and glaucoma; glp-1r agonists and glaucoma. 4) overview of glaucoma neuroprotection agents: why do we not have a neuroprotection agent for glaucoma? How can ai help facilitate randomized clinical trials in neuroprotection? 5) sex hormones and glaucoma: the role of sex hormones in the pathogenesis of open-angle glaucoma: evidence from epidemiological studies; estrogen signaling pathways in glaucoma; the biomechanical argument that estrogen plays a role in glaucoma; 6) non-iop factors of importance in glaucoma: diet and glaucoma; hypertension, antihypertensive drugs and glaucoma; the impact of glaucoma on activities of daily living. 7) what can tgf do to help patients, researchers, and eyecare providers tackle glaucoma?: what is the glaucoma foundation doing now? What do patients want to see in glaucoma research? 8) start with the young: info session on glaucoma for middle and high school students; in coordination with the stem institute at the city college of New York. 9) newsletters: tgf produced six electronic newsletters that were distributed to more than 16,000 households. Tgf's quarterly printed newsletters were available for constituents who do not use computers or who prefer to read paper documents. Newsletters include interviews with doctors, researchers, and patients. They cover topics such as advancements in diagnosis and treatment, perspectives on care, and personal stories of living with the disease.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 93% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 59% for direct work, and 41% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 58
  • Transparency & Controls: 72
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 75
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 47.7%; rating input score 48
  • Program expense ratio: 77.6%; rating input score 78
  • Fundraising efficiency: $14.64 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 48.7%; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.78; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.07; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 24.6%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 9.8% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 12.5% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 12.6% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 47.7% of revenue deployed · 77.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 22 of 22 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $2.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $444K · 25 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 39 of 39 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2016 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 12 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 7 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 48/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 7 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 49/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 11/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 54/100.