Lundquist Institute for Biomedical Innovation at Harbor-ucla Medical Center

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
952138184
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Torrance, CA, USA
Phone
3102223605
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Medical Disciplines Research

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$94,550,669
Expenses
$106,850,446
Assets
$152,725,000
Liabilities
$84,264,000

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

Leadership & pay

31 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DR JOE RAMOS (PRESIDENT/CEO)
  • MARIANNE GAUSCHE-HILL (INTERIM CEO)
  • IVAN I SHIN (SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT OF DEVELOPMENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • MARIANNE GAUSCHE-HILL (INTERIM CEO): $925,655 total reported compensation
  • ASHRAF S IBRAHIM (INVESTIGATOR, PHD): $610,917 total reported compensation
  • WEI YAN (INVESTIGATOR, PHD): $407,029 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To engage in biomedical research, train young scientists, and provide community health services.

What it reported doing in 2024

Health care program: lundquist institute clinical outreach includes women, infants and children (wic) clinics, participation in the south los angeles best babies collaborative, immunize la kids coalition, newborn screening program, perinatal access program, a women's healthcare clinic, and various educational programs.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 88% 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. 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: 62
  • Accountability: 68
  • Sustainability: 24
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 79.4%; rating input score 79
  • Program expense ratio: 69.6%; rating input score 70
  • Fundraising efficiency: $132.86 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 68th 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: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Limited
    • Conducts field audits: Limited
    • May suspend future funding: Limited
    • Requires financial reports: Limited
    • Conducts site visits: Limited
    • Requires grant agreements: Limited
    • May require repayment: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 53.3%; rating input score 53; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -13%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.43; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.55; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.6%; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.2% per year; rating input score 100; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.8% per year; rating input score 100; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.2% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 79.4% of revenue deployed · 69.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 16 of 30 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $74.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $926K · 31 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $4.4M reported
  • Consistency: 34 of 34 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 15 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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.
  • Review — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 53/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 6/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 52/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 20/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 32/100.