Biotech Partners

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
943171180
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Berkeley, CA, USA
Phone
5107055192
Rating
85
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Education N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$697,894
Expenses
$1,049,354
Assets
$992,258
Liabilities
$303,450

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Arjun Natesan PhD (President)
  • Carla Carriveau JD (Vice President)
  • Lynda Gayden (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Lynda Gayden (Executive Director): $145,465 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

See Schedule O

What it reported doing in 2024

Since the programs inception in 1992, over 5,048 students have participated in BPs Biotech Academy; approximately 1,848 placed into paid internships and co- ops who have collectively earned over $4.12 million to date. Biotech Partners operates its program in Berkeley High School (1993), Oakland Unified School District (1996); Oakland Technical High School (2008), Antioch High School (2015), South San Francisco High (2015-17), and San Marin High (2016) and partners with the Peralta Community College District. Biotech Partners two-year high school program component includes a hands-on lab-focused curriculum and a bioscience industry internship between the 11th and 12th grade years. Over 550 students have continued their bioscience education in Biotech Partners community college Bioscience Career Institute (BCI) program.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 88
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 19
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 73.7%; rating input score 74
  • Fundraising efficiency: $39.41 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 16th 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: -50.4%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.95; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.31; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 13.9%; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6.1% per year; rating input score 100; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.1% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.9% per year; rating input score 100; 43rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 73.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $773K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $145K · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 25 of 26 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2012 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.
  • 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.

  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 3/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 41/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 24/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 26/100.