The Orthotic and Prosthetic Foundation for Education and Research

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
510642386
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2014, Form 990-N 2011
Location
Tomball, TX, USA
Phone
2542149891
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Hospitals and Related Primary Medical Care Facilities

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,042,358
Expenses
$567,823
Assets
$3,775,891
Liabilities
$101,029

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • FANNY SCHULTEA (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • FANNY SCHULTEA (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $129,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To advance the art and science of orthotic and prosthetic rehabilitation by enhancing clinical practices through professional training awards, promoting educational opportunities through academic scholarships, strengthening the body of knowledge through research grants and fellowships, and inspiring excellence through recognition of scholarly achievements.

What it reported doing in 2025

Professional awards: the foundation recognizes and supports orthotic and prosthetic (o&p) professionalsincluding clinicians, educators, and researcherswho demonstrate leadership, excellence, and commitment to advancing the field. In the past year, five professional recognition awards were granted to outstanding clinicians for their contributions to patient care, mentorship, and innovation. In addition, the o&p foundation supported ten clinician phd students through its initiatives, providing funding to help advance o&p-relevant research, promote academic career development, and cultivate future leaders in the profession. These efforts help elevate professional standards, drive innovation, and ensure that the o&p workforce continues to grow in knowledge, impact, and diversity of thought.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 91% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 81% of its reported program spending out as grants.

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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 48
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 75
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 40.4%; rating input score 40
  • Program expense ratio: 64%; rating input score 64
  • Fundraising efficiency: $11.35 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 78th 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: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • 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: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 45.5%; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.65; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 22.7%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 20.9% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 22.6% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 15.6% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 40.4% of revenue deployed · 64% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $363K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $129K · 14 people listed
  • Consistency: 29 of 29 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2015 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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 40/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 39/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: CEO compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 13/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 50/100.