Health and Environmental Sciences Institute

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
522337019
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2026598404
Rating
81
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Science and Technology N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$5,906,429
Expenses
$5,840,464
Assets
$10,839,257
Liabilities
$3,958,978

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

Leadership & pay

43 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DR SYRIL PETTIT (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • DR GARY MINSAVAGE (PRESIDENT)
  • DR ANTHONY HOLMES (PAST-PRESIDENT)
  • DR WARREN M CASEY (VICE-PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • DR SYRIL PETTIT (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $347,026 total reported compensation
  • MS BETH-ELLEN BERRY (CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER): $241,380 total reported compensation
  • DR MICHELLE EMBRY (ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR): $227,440 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 health and environmental sciences institute (hesi) is a nonprofit institution whose mission is to engage scientists from academia, government, industry, nonprofit, and other research institutions to identify and resolve global health and environmental issues.

What it reported doing in 2024

Cardiac safety technical committee: the mission of the cardiac safety technical committee is to improve public health by reducing unanticipated cardiovascular-related adverse effects from drugs or chemicals and develop innovative approaches to support early detection and prediction as well as improved understanding of cardiovascular toxicology and pathobiology. In 2024, the committee continued to sponsor projects addressing cardiovascular safety testing, published six scientific manuscripts in a peer-reviewed technical journal based on the committee's research and presented 4 times at public scientific meetings. An additional 4 manuscripts are in progress. Key projects included continuation of a new study to explore drug-induced blood pressure changes, a study to identify biomarkers of bleeding disorders, project planning to explore cardiac function and sodium channel block, and completion of data analysis for a new study to explore use of cardiac stem cells to predict toxicity. The committee also completed their support of one grant awarded through fda and nih in support of a strategic framework to enhance the use of mechanistic studies to predict potential cardiac risks for pharmaceuticals. A second grant through fda and nih continued work assessing variability and reproducibility in assays to test for drug induced cardiac toxicity. The grant includes subcontracts at several laboratories in the us and europe.

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 79% for direct work, and 21% for grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 82
  • Transparency & Controls: 74
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 39
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 81.7%; rating input score 82
  • Program expense ratio: 82%; rating input score 82
  • Fundraising efficiency: $64.16 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Pass
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 95.5%; rating input score 96; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • 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: 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: 1.1%; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.86; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.37; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 27.9%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 7% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.8% per year; rating input score 100; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7% per year; rating input score 100; 45th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 81.7% of revenue deployed · 82% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 32 of 32 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $4.8M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $347K · 43 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $298K reported
  • Consistency: 33 of 35 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 16 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 8 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.

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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 6 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 38/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 59/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 6/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 29/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.