Aspire Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
205994426
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2018
Forms available
Form 990 2018
Location
Kansas City, MO, USA
Phone
8165312842
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Heart, Circulatory Research

Reported finances

Revenue
$155,483
Expenses
$155,483
Assets
$35,786
Liabilities
$35,786

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2018. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

People named in this filing

  • TIMOTHY M BATEMAN MD (MEDICAL DIRECTOR/DIRECTOR)
  • KENNETH C HUBER MD (DIRECTOR)
  • JAMES A CASE (DIRECTOR)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2018. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The primary purpose of aspire foundation is to conduct medical research in academic and clinical settings and to publish and make available to the medical community and the general public the results of such medical research.

What it reported doing in 2018

A 24-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel group, placebo-controlled study to investigate the effects of saxagliptin and sitagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and heart failure aka measure-hf: the purpose of this study to increase knowledge of treatment with saxagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and heart failure. No research subjects were enrolled in 2018. This multi-center, study was closed at the irb on 06dec2018.expenses $ 3,175. Revenue $ 3,175high-performance automated analysis of fast myocardial perfusion spect aka cedars nih grant: the purpose of this retrospective research study is to develop image processing algorithms for improved automated analysis of fast myocardial perfusion spect. No subjects were enrolled in 2018.expenses $ 2,470. Revenue $ 2,470.123i-mibg (adreview) heart-to-mediastinal (h/m) ratio and spect imaging on a small field of view-high efficiency cardiac spect system aka mibg iit: this study seeks to establish a methodology for using tomographic data acquired using state of the art high sensitivity imaging systems to assess cardiac denervation with 123i-mibg (iodine-123 metaiodobenzylguanidine). Enrollment was completed in 2014. The study was closed at the irb in 2018.rapid-acquisition, low-dosimetry tc-99m stress-only myocardial perfusion spect on the spectrum dynamic system: comparison of efficiency and outcomes with stress-only anger spect aka d-spect stress only: this study is prospective case-controlled comparison study of patients undergoing stress-only imaging using a traditional anger-based protocol versus imaging on the spectrum dynamics camera using a novel rapid and low-dosimetry protocol. Enrollment was completed in 2012. A manuscript is currently being prepared for submission to a peer-review journal for publication.iac grant: the iac grant awarded to the aspire foundation funded a retrospective study entitled: "is camera age an indicator of nuclear cardiology lab quality?" a manuscript is currently being prepared for submission to a peer-review journal for publication.therapeutic potential for aldosterone inhibition in duchenne muscular dystrophy aka dmd : the purpose of this study was to demonstrate noninferiority of spironolactone vs. Eplerenone in preserving cardiac function in dmd patients with preserved lv ejection fraction. Three subjects completed follow-up cardiac mri imaging in 2018.expenses: $ 3,158. Revenue $ 3,158.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% 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 available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and the required major-donor schedule is missing or incomplete.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 88
  • Transparency & Controls: 75
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 32
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 98.5%; rating input score 99
  • Program expense ratio: 98.5%; rating input score 99
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

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: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: No; rating input score 0
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 0%; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.23; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -19.3% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -12.9% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -11.9% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 98.5% of revenue deployed · 98.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $153K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $149K reported
  • Consistency: 13 of 13 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2010 to 2018
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Major donor itemization scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 41/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 13/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 6/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.