Life Science Washington Institute
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 822829364
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2018–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2017
- Location
- Seattle, WA, USA
- Phone
- 2064569567
- Rating
- 76
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Professional Societies, Associations
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,065,026
- Expenses
- $1,062,716
- Assets
- $140,594
- Liabilities
- $54,355
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
11 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- RICHARD GIERSCH (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- MARC CUMMINGS (BOARD CHAIR): $394,481 total reported compensation
- RICHARD GIERSCH (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $129,495 total reported compensation
- AYLIN KIM (DIRECTOR OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP): $121,487 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Our mission is to provide support to life science entrepreneurs and start-up companies via educational, economic and other resources crucial for their success. We want to ensure life science entrepreneurs continue to have access to the mentoring and resources they require to start and grow their companies.
What it reported doing in 2024
Life science Washington institute aims to assist life science researchers, entrepreneurs, and companies in bridging the gap between discovery and commercialization. We do this through a broad range of activities, including mentoring services, regular educational and company showcase events, and the creation of resources pertinent to the issues associated with technology commercialization in Washington state.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Grant-funded. 92% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 50% for direct work, and 50% for grants.
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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 93
- Transparency & Controls: 71
- Accountability: 59
- Sustainability: 22
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 93.5%; rating input score 94
- Program expense ratio: 93.7%; rating input score 94
- Fundraising efficiency: $70.01 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
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; 76th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 20th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 2 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 22
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: Fail
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 0.2%; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.13; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.39; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 28.6%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 21.4% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 15.5% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 10.6% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 93.5% of revenue deployed · 93.7% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 6 of 7 board members independent · 2 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $996K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $394K · 11 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 26 of 26 current checks pass
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 6 filing years from 2018 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 22 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 21 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.
- Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 8 not reported.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 37/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 6/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 8/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 20/100.