Interoperability Institute Llc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
814835288
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Lansing, MI, USA
Phone
8444542443
Rating
62
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Management & Technical Assistance

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,482,731
Expenses
$2,429,151
Assets
$43,098
Liabilities
$5,841,209

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • TIMOTHY PLETCHER (EXECUTIVE DI): $515,381 total reported compensation
  • ISABELL PACHECO (FORMER KEY E): $429,156 total reported compensation
  • BHARAT GANDHI (CHIEF LEGAL): $368,548 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Interoperability institute llc's ("ioi") mission is to enable organizations and communities to harness the benefits of interoperability at scale. This is achieved through next-generation workforce training, interoperability testbed standardization, and solution development focused on enabling interoperability and standards.

What it reported doing in 2024

Interoperability resources - ioi offers two sandboxes for testing using realistic synthetic patient data sets: interoperability land(iol), a hosted, secure 'private locker', and meld, an open-source, cloud-based product. Both can be used for collaborative testing and interopathons.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 100% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 77
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 65
  • Sustainability: 2
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 64.8%; rating input score 65
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

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: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 40%; rating input score 40; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 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: Limited
    • 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: -63.8%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.02; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 135.53; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 60.1%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -26.3% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -28.5% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -40% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 64.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 2 of 5 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $515K · 14 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 22 of 22 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 9 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 40/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 2/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 2/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 1/100.