Copd Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
201048322
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Miami, FL, USA
Phone
8667312673
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Heart and Circulatory System Diseases, Disorders

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$14,381,344
Expenses
$12,606,054
Assets
$12,515,154
Liabilities
$5,176,999

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

Leadership & pay

26 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JEAN WRIGHT MD MBA (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)

Highest reported compensation

  • JEAN WRIGHT MD MBA (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER): $324,799 total reported compensation
  • VINCENT MALANGA (EVP, CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER): $240,156 total reported compensation
  • ELISHA MALANGA (CHIEF CORPORATE RELATIONS OFFICER): $205,274 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The copd foundation was established to improve the lives of people with copd, bronchiectasis, and nontuberculous mycobacterial (ntm) lung disease through initiatives that expand services and speed innovations which will make treatment more effective and affordable.we do this through scientific research, education, advocacy, and awareness with the goal of disease prevention, slowed progression, and ultimately a cure.

What it reported doing in 2024

Research & medicalthe copd foundation research team engages with multiple individuals and organizations to support research studies and clinical trials. These studies focus on a wide range of topics that align with the foundation mission. These include patient symptom treatment, virtual copd management tools, patient feedback on screening tools, and development of new therapies and medical devices to address unmet needs. The copd foundation research team also participated in several activities that are targeting people with early copd with the aim to develop approaches that can be used to slow disease progression these include an american thoracic society early disease working group, co-chaired by the copd foundation and discussions related to the design and conduct of clinical trials in patients with early disease.the copd foundation is continuing the work of the patient inspired validation of outcome tools (pivot) project. Pivot was established to be a driving force for integrating the patient and the patient voice into clinical outcome measurement validation and selection for use in chronic lung disease research and clinical trials. The pivot project has produced two manuscripts, one to describe the objectives of pivot and a second reporting the first results of analysis of what matters most to patients with copd. Over the next year the pivot team will conduct a survey of copd patients to better understand the heterogeneity in how copd patients experience their disease in their daily lives and what is most important to them in terms of unmet needs. In the coming year, the pivot team will also begin similar work in non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis.the copd foundation continues to prioritize the development of its patient powered research network or pprn, a network in which patients are recruited to share their health information and disease impact. Patient provided health information is stored in a secure database and is used to support projects where patient input is needed. The pprn is currently being used to support multiple ongoing research studies and clinical trial activities.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 96% 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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 64
  • Transparency & Controls: 74
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 50
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 64.4%; rating input score 64
  • Program expense ratio: 71.3%; rating input score 71
  • Fundraising efficiency: $13.61 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • 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; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: 12.3%; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.99; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.41; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 12.3%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0.8% per year; rating input score 100; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.3% per year; rating input score 100; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.4% per year; rating input score 100; 19th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 64.4% of revenue deployed · 71.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 18 of 18 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 5 filed program accomplishments · $9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $325K · 26 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 3 contractors listed · $462K reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 33 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2016 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 8 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 47/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 36/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 13/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 35/100.