BioBuilder Educational Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
453844761
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2015
Location
Newton, MA, United States
Phone
6172854141
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Education N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,694,205
Expenses
$932,765
Assets
$2,303,733
Liabilities
$354,383

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KEIRA KRAUSZ (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • NATALIE KULDELL (EXECUTIVE DI): $51,001 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

BioBuilder Educational Foundation is a nonprofit dedicated to providing the largest and most diverse group of students access to high-quality training in the life sciences. Our approach is to equip students with cutting-edge tools and programs so they can tackle local and global challenges with bioscience.

What it reported doing in 2024

Through its workshops, biobuilder reaches approximately 65 teachers across the united states and internationally. The biobuilder club reached 177 high school students globally working with approximately 23 teachers and 33 mentors and were featured in multiple publications and recognized with multiple awards. Biobuilder also places students in apprenticeship positions. Additionally, biobuilder through its state-of-the-art learning lab offers approximately 63 programs working with over 155 adults and 1,088 students.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 62% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 36
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 92
  • Sustainability: 74
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 29.4%; rating input score 29
  • Program expense ratio: 56%; rating input score 56
  • Fundraising efficiency: $3.63 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 44.9%; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.47; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.15; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.5%; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 20.8% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 24.7% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 23.5% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 1 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 2 operating locations identified
  • Where the money goes: 29.4% of revenue deployed · 56% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 7 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $522K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $51K · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 29 of 30 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2016 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 29/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 56/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 11/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 36/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 52/100.