The Jack Kent Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
260706702
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2008
Location
New Orleans, LA, USA
Phone
5043402401
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Educational Services and Schools - Other

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$431,483
Expenses
$155,521
Assets
$2,041,289
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JOHN WESLEY EMISON MD DDS (PRESIDENT)
  • CHRISTOPHER HAGGERTY DDS MD (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • BRIAN FARRELL DDS MD (DIRECTOR): $2,900 total reported compensation
  • JEFFREY JAMES MD DDS (EX OFFICIO): $2,100 total reported compensation
  • JOHN NEARY MD DDS (DIRECTOR): $1,400 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 foundation fosters advancements in the art and science of oral and maxillofacial surgery by (1) supporting and strengthening the teaching, research, and service goals of the lsu oms department in new orleans by enriching and supporting practitioner alumni and resident education while providing opportunity for all alumni to give back and pass forward a part of what they have received through their oms training and by (2) funding and supporting scientific and clinical research and education in the field of oral and maxillofacial surgery.

What it reported doing in 2025

The organization (jkomsf) co-sponsors and co-administers a two-day continuing professional education conference (pearls course) in april in new orleans, la along with the Louisiana society of oral and maxillofacial surgeons and the lsu oral and maxillofacial surgery alumni associations. The oms pearls conference features practitioners and health industry experts and provides 8.5 hours cde/cme credits. The jkomsf also co-sponsors and co-administers the annual lsu oms review course. The oms review course is normally a live educational activity in new orleans, designed for oms practitioners and lsu oms residents who desire a comprehensive review that focuses on all phases of oral and maxillofacial surgery. Both of these educational activities seek to sustain and advance the lsu oms program by enriching and supporting practitioner alumni and resident education.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 81% 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 - 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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 48
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 69
  • Sustainability: 84
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 37.9%; rating input score 38
  • Program expense ratio: 82.5%; rating input score 82
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 81st 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 64%; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 13.13; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5%; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.2% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.7% per year; rating input score 100; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.7% per year; rating input score 100; 47th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 37.9% of revenue deployed · 82.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $128K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $3K · 15 people listed
  • Consistency: 21 of 21 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 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.

Key Signals

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

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 38/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 31/100.