International Consortium of Universities For Drug Demand Reduction Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
824727734
IRS 990 coverage
2019–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Lenexa, KS, USA
Phone
8168764699
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Research Institutes and/or Public Policy Analysis

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,121,960
Expenses
$1,111,769
Assets
$406,636
Liabilities
$12,758

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

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Laurie Krom (Executive Director)
  • Michal Miovsky (Board President)
  • Roger Peters (Vice President)
  • Igor Koutsenok (Vice President)
  • Kevin Mulvey (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Laurie Krom (Executive Director): $128,752 total reported compensation
  • Kevin Mulvey (Executive Director): $109,685 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

ICUDDR supports the rapid improvement in competencies and skills among current and future generations of addiction professionals to meet the increasing demand for prevention, treatment and public health services. Toward this end, ICUDDR facilitates networking among universities to promote high quality education and training in the field of addiction prevention, treatment and public health intervention. It also pursues related applied addictions research, outreach and advocacy.

What it reported doing in 2024

Research & Systems Change: ICUDDR connects higher education institutions, researchers, practitioners, policymakers, and partners to generate and disseminate knowledge, strengthen research and technical collaboration, and advance systems change. Through the International Technology Transfer Center (ITTC) Network, ICUDDR promotes systems- level approaches that support the implementation and sustainability of evidence-based substance use prevention, treatment, and recovery. During FY2024, ICUDDR strengthened research and systems-change capacity through the ITTC Network, international research partnerships, technical collaboration, and knowledge generation. ICUDDR supported the development of a new ITTC in Chile and supported an ITTC learning community. In partnership with NECPAM and ISAM, ICUDDR conducted a global workforce impact survey, receiving 242 responses from 61 countries and conducting 8 follow-up interviews. ICUDDR also administered competitive opportunities to expand the ITTC and higher education networks, receiving 15 ITTC applications, 18 letters of interest, and eight full proposals. Planned awards were not completed due to the unexpected termination of the federal cooperative agreements supporting these initiatives.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 95% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
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. Expenses are high relative to revenue and some filed totals do not add up.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 66
  • Transparency & Controls: 83
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 32
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 74.3%; rating input score 74
  • Program expense ratio: 75%; rating input score 75
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • 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: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 0.9%; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.37; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 21.4%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 16.4% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 21.7% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 19% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 74.3% of revenue deployed · 75% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $834K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $129K · 16 people listed
  • Consistency: 21 of 22 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2019 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 39/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 17/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 13/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 58/100.