Leverage Research Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
453989386
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
St Petersburg, FL, USA
Phone
8104171594
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Research Institutes and Public Policy Analysis

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$392,590
Expenses
$430,580
Assets
$7,556
Liabilities
$135,480

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • GEOFFREY TAYLOR ANDERS II (CEO & CHAIR & TREASURER)

Highest reported compensation

  • MELINDA BRADLEY (COO & SECRETARY): $64,263 total reported compensation
  • GEOFFREY TAYLOR ANDERS II (CEO & CHAIR & TREASURER): $21,533 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Leverage research's mission is to aid scientific advance by supporting early stage science. We support early stage science by: (1) conducting in-depth academic research into the history of early scientific discoveries in order to understand the causes and principles which drive scientific advance, (2) conducting and supporting basic research in fields that have not yet attained the level of success enjoyed by the hard sciences, especially the social sciences, and (3) communicating our findings to scientists, funders, policy makers, and members of the interested public.

What it reported doing in 2024

Introspection - over the past decade, leverage studied psychology, a field mired in a replication crisis. Our hypothesis has been, and continues to be, that introspection is a promising research method and can provide the foundation for fruitful efforts to better understand people. Our exploratory psychology program is an attempt to use an introspection-centric approach to understanding people. We believe that the creation and distribution of useful tools for introspection have the potential to advance our understanding of people and to help individuals generate beneficial self-knowledge. We provide introspective tools such as belief reporting and charting, collaborate with other practitioners and developers of introspective tools, and provide training to researchers on how to use introspection to study the mind effectively and safely. Our goal is to develop and distribute introspective methods that could serve as the foundation for developing a new subfield of introspection research.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 58% for direct work, and 42% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 84
  • Transparency & Controls: 84
  • Accountability: 67
  • Sustainability: 14
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 97.5%; rating input score 98
  • Program expense ratio: 88.9%; rating input score 89
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 81.3%; rating input score 81; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 66.7%; rating input score 67; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -9.7%; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.02; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 17.93; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 19.9%; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -0.8% per year; rating input score 0; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -0.9% per year; rating input score 0; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -7.1% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 97.5% of revenue deployed · 88.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 2 of 3 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $383K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $64K · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 24 of 25 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 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.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 23/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 2/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 19/100.