Collaborative Trajectory Analysis Project

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
934558784
IRS 990 coverage
2024–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Cambridge, MA, USA
Phone
6174482617
Rating
60
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Nerve, Muscle, Bone Diseases Research

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,887,913
Expenses
$1,069,737
Assets
$952,371
Liabilities
$134,195

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SUSAN WARD (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR & CO-FOUNDER)

Highest reported compensation

  • SUSAN WARD (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR & CO-FOUNDER): $285,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To understand and account for heterogeneity in longitudinal progression of disease by engaging regulators, clinical experts, drug developers and patient groups in collaborative learning from patient data, creating tools and insights for drug development and evaluation, sharing broadly with the entire duchenne community, and delivering near-term impact for clinical trials.

What it reported doing in 2024

Ctap uses the scientific method to engage in research studies to precisely and verifiably characterize particular aspects of the progression of dmd, and to identify broad research principles that merit attention by the dmd scientific research community. Ctap then participates in the publication of its results to the interested public.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 61% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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.

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 few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 52
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 59
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 40.3%; rating input score 40
  • Program expense ratio: 70.6%; rating input score 71
  • Fundraising efficiency: $16 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: 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: 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: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 43.3%; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.89; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.14; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 26.6%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: 40.3% of revenue deployed · 70.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $756K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $285K · 8 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 3 contractors listed · $814K reported
  • Consistency: 19 of 19 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 40/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 52/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 39/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 9/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 37/100.