Kidney Transplant Collaborative

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
862815247
IRS 990 coverage
2021–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Charlotte, NC, USA
Phone
7043875327
Rating
51
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Alliance/Advocacy Organizations

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,595,313
Expenses
$1,285,082
Assets
$978,132
Liabilities
$30,000

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • Max Rose (Director and Senior Advisor): $223,167 total reported compensation
  • Andrew D Howard (Chairman): $207,000 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The Kidney Transplant Collaborative (KTC) is a national non-profit advocacy organization based in Washington, DC that is dedicated to identifying forward-thinking policy solutions to increase kidney transplants and decreasing many of the obstacles and financial barriers to kidney transplantation for potential kidney transplant recipients and donors. Through its advocacy and grants funding efforts, KTC will work to improve the quality of life and survival rates for the tens of thousands of individuals with ESRD currently on kidney transplant waiting lists as well as donors, potential donors, and the families of all involved.

What it reported doing in 2025

Grants- KTC will award grants to fund innovative new programs and best practices that demonstrate a direct increase in kidney transplants or decrease financial obstacles and other barriers recipients, donors, and their families face in today's kidney transplant system.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 84% 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

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and a relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 56
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 16
  • Sustainability: 51
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 58.4%; rating input score 58
  • Program expense ratio: 72.4%; rating input score 72
  • 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 19.4%; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.76; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 33.5%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1.1% per year; rating input score 100; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -29.8% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -47.9% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 58.4% of revenue deployed · 72.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 3 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $931K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $223K · 3 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $862K reported
  • Consistency: 22 of 22 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2021 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 3 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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 58/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 35/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 6/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 49/100.