Asapbio

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
814921243
IRS 990 coverage
2017–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
San Francisco, CA, USA
Phone
3196105597
Rating
66
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Research Institutes and Public Policy Analysis

Reported finances

Revenue
$609,930
Expenses
$325,861
Assets
$763,661
Liabilities
$7,706

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LUDO WALTMAN (PRESIDENT)
  • IAIN CHEESEMAN (VICE PRESIDENT/TREASURER)
  • GAUTAM DEY (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • KATIE CORKER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • KATIE CORKER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $146,638 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Asapbio is accelerating the open communication of life sciences research, promoting the advancement of discovery and the dissemination of knowledge for the public good, and empowering early career researchers with mechanisms for demonstrating their productivity.

What it reported doing in 2025

Community - foster a supportive community that is advancing our vision of open, rapid, and rigorous research communication. Completed a sixth cohort of our fellows program, continuing a two-track approach with both training/mentoring and advocacy projects. Trialed a residency program with three resident teams, so far delivering a series of four myth-busting shorts and an oer book aimed at librarians. Grew our community engagement and advocacy, hosting seven community calls, delivering eighteen newsletters, and continuing robust social media engagement.rewards and incentives - facilitate the creation of conditions where researcher-led, open, rigorous research communication is more attractive and valued. Disseminated the preprint policy framework (a collaboration with creative commons). Co-hosted a convening (with international science council, dora, and cwts leiden) bringing together leaders from the research assessment and publishing reform movements. Co-hosted a meeting of advocates (with confederation of open access repositories) who are working together to champion the publish-review-curate model of scholarly communication and facilitate the launch of a publish-review-curate alliance.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 98% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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 - A large share of total spending goes to programs 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: 65
  • Transparency & Controls: 55
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 70
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 46.7%; rating input score 47
  • Program expense ratio: 86.2%; rating input score 86
  • Fundraising efficiency: $276.29 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 92; 92nd 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: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Grant itemization coverage: Scored; rating input score 0
  • 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: 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: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 46.6%; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.34; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 45%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6.7% per year; rating input score 100; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -14.9% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -8% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 46.7% of revenue deployed · 86.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $281K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $147K · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 24 of 24 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2017 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 47/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 3/100.