Ats Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
202138855
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2020
Forms available
Form 990 2020
Location
New York, NY, USA
Phone
2123158600
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$224,022
Expenses
$8,517,829
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

21 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KAREN COLLISHAW (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • KAREN COLLISHAW (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $328,949 total reported compensation
  • JUAN CELEDON (TRUSTEE): $65,622 total reported compensation
  • GERARD CRINER (TRUSTEE): $3,071 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The ats foundation supports the ats mission by funding research, education, and training to prevent, treat, and cure respiratory diseases worldwide.

What it reported doing in 2020

The ats foundation partners with individuals, non-profit lung-related research partners, public interest organizations, industry, and other allied organizations to support the full spectrum of research, from basic science to health care delivery and public health, as well as training and education for scientists, clinicians, patients, and patient organizations. The ats foundation has a vision that strives to preserve and improve the respiratory health of all people globally through its strategic investments in the full spectrum of research, education, and training. The ats foundation measures the success of its efforts by the benefits provided to patients, their families, and communities worldwide.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 96% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 88
  • Transparency & Controls: 50
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 5
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 95.8%; rating input score 96
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Fail
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 52.9%; rating input score 53; 40th 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; 63rd 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: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -3,702.2%; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0.7%; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 20.3% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -1.7% per year; rating input score 0; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.5% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 95.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 20 of 20 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $8.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $329K · 21 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 22 of 23 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2010 to 2020
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 10 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 10 filed related-organization links
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 8 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 53/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 1/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 43/100.