Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science
Legal name: Charles R Drew University of Medicine and Science
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 956151774
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
- Location
- Los Angeles, CA, USA
- Phone
- (323) 563-4800
- Rating
- 76
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $192,031,248
- Expenses
- $131,837,158
- Assets
- $397,257,378
- Liabilities
- $101,569,251
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
35 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- DAVID CARLISLE (PRESIDENT & CEO)
- JAYDUTT VADGAMA - FORMER (VICE PRESIDENT, RESEARCH/PROFESSOR V)
Highest reported compensation
- DAVID CARLISLE (PRESIDENT & CEO): $653,093 total reported compensation
- DEBORAH PROTHROW-STITH (DEAN, COLLEGE OF MEDICINE): $501,352 total reported compensation
- DOTUN A OGUNYEMI (ASSOCIATE DEAN, COLLEGE OF MEDICINE): $388,321 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science is dedicated to educating and training health professionals and scientists to serve underserved communities and eliminate health disparities.
What it reported doing in 2024
Research funding: in 2025, cdu was awarded ten projects totaling $8,986,668 and five subawards amounting to $2,897,880, through nih research and training grants for a total of $11,884,548 in support for advancing our mission of excellence in research and education.the cdu axis center continues to receive $4,236,648 in nih/nimhd funding (u54) in 2025, providing critical support for twenty-nine faculty members in advancing their research initiatives.cdu clinical and translational science institute (ctsi) aims to build a strong infrastructure and provide essential services that foster translational science research. Cdu is proud to partner with the ucla ctsi, alongside cedars-sinai medical center and the lundquist institute for biomedical innovation. The mission of ucla ctsi is to develop and implement innovations that address the most pressing health needs of los angeles and the nation. Through this partnership, cdu faculty gained access to valuable resources, including pilot funding opportunities, vouchers for ucla core facilities, grant-writing workshops, and biostatistical consultations. Cdu ctsi has obligated to date $2,454,040 with an annual cdu/ctsi budget of $613,510.research faculty recruitmentcdu continues to expand its faculty recruitment and the promotion of several outstanding postdoctoral scholars to faculty positions. Their appointments will further strengthen our research enterprise and foster innovation across disciplines: dr. Ke wu - assistant professor, college of medicinedr. Edward adinkrah - assistant professor, college of nursingdr. Alexandra donovan - adjunct assistant professor, college of medicinethese advancements reflect their dedication to research and scholarship, and we look forward to the continued contributions they will bring to our research and academic community.additionally, research continues to expand its clinical research leadership by recruiting dr. Dean sherzai as director of the cdu clinical and translational research institute (ctrc) to increase clinical trials.junior faculty developmentthe university remains committed to supporting our junior faculty in expanding the research portfolio. In 2025, funding highlights included funding of two junior faculty. Dr. Susanna cavallero received an r16 award for four years for a total $578,000 and a ucla/nih lift-up subaward for one year of $40,000. Dr. Pranabananda dutta received the ucla/nih/ncats-kl2 award of two to three years for $451,841.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 77% for direct work, and 23% for grants.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of total spending goes to programs and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 70
- Transparency & Controls: 73
- Accountability: 87
- Sustainability: 75
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 58.7%; rating input score 59
- Program expense ratio: 81.2%; rating input score 81
- Fundraising efficiency: $156.64 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
- Compensation committee: Pass
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Scored; rating input score 0
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 31.3%; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.01; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.26; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 5%; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 9.7% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 8.1% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 7.7% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 2 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 58.7% of revenue deployed · 81.2% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 12 of 14 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $107M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $653K · 35 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $3.9M reported
- Consistency: 41 of 41 current checks pass
- Schedules: 12 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 32 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 13 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.
- 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.
Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 59/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 17/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.