Wisconsin Urological Society Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 391930250
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2010–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2024
- Location
- Schaumburg, IL, USA
- Phone
- 8475177225
- Rating
- 78
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $88,396
- Expenses
- $114,131
- Assets
- $487,250
- Liabilities
- $21,519
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
5 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Walid A Farhat MD (President)
- Nathan D Grunewald MD MBA (President-Elect)
- Scott Charles Johnson MD MBA (Past President)
People named in this filing
- Walid A Farhat MD (President)
- Nathan D Grunewald MD MBA (President-Elect)
- E Jason Abel MD FACS (Treasurer)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The society was created to provide a forum for the exchange of scientific and clinical ideas and data amongst its members and to provide a mechanism, through the annual meetings, for the discussion and implementation of this data to the clinical practice of urology. The goals of the society are, by facilitating this exchange, to provide state of the art urologic care to the residents of Wisconsin, and to assist in the educational efforts of its members, as well as to disseminate new data and technologic advances to the practicing urologists of Wisconsin.
What it reported doing in 2024
Educational training and development of the residents and para-medical personnel and staff at the university of Wisconsin medical school in madison and the medical college of Wisconsin in milwaukee.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent revenue detail to tell how this nonprofit funds its work.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 80% for direct work, and 20% for grants.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and liabilities are high compared with assets.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 76
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 42
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 83.3%; rating input score 83
- Program expense ratio: 64.5%; rating input score 65
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -29.1%; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.27; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.04; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 10.3% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 1.5% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 3.9% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 83.3% of revenue deployed · 64.5% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 2 filed program accomplishments · $74K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
- Consistency: 9 of 9 current checks pass
- Schedules: 1 filed schedules
- Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- 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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 19/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 22/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.