BioUtah

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
900899204
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Salt Lake City, UT, USA
Phone
8018674061
Rating
37
Verdict
REVIEW
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Business and Industry

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,451,145
Expenses
$1,545,709
Assets
$799,503
Liabilities
$570,053

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

Leadership & pay

18 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Kelvyn Cullimore (CEO/President)
  • Denise Bell (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Kelvyn Cullimore (CEO/President): $275,676 total reported compensation
  • Denise Bell (Vice President): $126,454 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

BioUtah was created to elevate the stature and influence of Utahs life science community on the national and global stage. The organization serves Utahs medical device, biopharma, natural products and healthcare industries through networking, advocacy and educational programs. BioUtah creates value for its members through events, legislative initiatives and community outreach. BioUtah fosters collaboration within and between industry, government and education to provide growth opportunities through funding, talent acquisition/development and strategic partnerships.

What it reported doing in 2024

BioUtah presents Utahs life sciences summit which brings together members of the life sciences community such as members of industry, government officials, researchers and students to learn about entrepreneurialism, Utahs regulatory environment, building enterprises in Utah, and the overall state and future of the sector. This years summit had attendees with a broad spectrum of participants from accross the groups we serve.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

REVIEW - Most voting board members are independent and revenue has grown recently. 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: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 53
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 19
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 88.9%; rating input score 89; 4th 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: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: -6.5%; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.52; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.71; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: Limited

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -69.1% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 13.3% per year; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 14.5% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 16 of 16 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $276K · 18 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 10 of 29 current checks pass · 19 findings to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2013 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 22/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 24/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Advertising column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX AllOtherExpenses column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX CompCurrentOfficersDirectors column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX ConferencesMeetings column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX DepreciationDepletion column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesAccounting column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesLegal column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesLobbying column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX InformationTechnology column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Insurance column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Occupancy column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX OfficeExpenses column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX OtherEmployeeBenefits column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX OtherSalariesAndWages column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX PayrollTaxes column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX PensionPlanContributions column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Travel column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D land buildings reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 10/100.