National Institute for Pharmaceutical Technology and Education Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
260636598
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Minneapolis, MN, USA
Phone
6126266650
Rating
64
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fund Raising and Fund Distribution

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,485,704
Expenses
$3,449,573
Assets
$4,763,244
Liabilities
$3,616,299

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

Leadership & pay

17 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Vadim J Gurvich (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Martin S Zand (Board Member): $628,455 total reported compensation
  • R Kip Guy (Board Member): $563,665 total reported compensation
  • Indra K Reddy (Board Member): $503,736 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The National Institute for Pharmaceutical Technology and Education (NIPTE) is a premier consortium of top universities working to advance pharmaceutical science, technology, and manufacturing. We collaborate with industry and regulatory agencies to drive innovation, enhance drug development efficiency, and strengthen the pharmaceutical workforce. Our research and education initiatives support modernized manufacturing, regulatory science, and supply chain resilience--ensuring safer, more effective, and more accessible medicines for patients. Through NIPTE, industry leaders and policymakers gain access to cutting-edge science and highly skilled talent pipeline, fostering a more robust and competitive pharmaceutical sector.

What it reported doing in 2024

During FY25, NIPTE completed or continued work on three major research projects. These projects support NIPTE's mission to make medicines more affordable and of higher quality. In addition, NIPTE supported the education component by developing and delivering advanced pharmaceutical topics to the workforce.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 68% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 98% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 80
  • Transparency & Controls: 64
  • Accountability: 28
  • Sustainability: 35
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 90.1%; rating input score 90
  • Program expense ratio: 90.9%; rating input score 91
  • 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: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Limited
    • Conducts field audits: Limited
    • May suspend future funding: Limited
    • Requires financial reports: Pass
    • Conducts site visits: Limited
    • Requires grant agreements: Limited
    • May require repayment: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd 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; 3rd 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: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 1%; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.38; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.76; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 21.1%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.3% per year; rating input score 100; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.5% per year; rating input score 100; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3.8% per year; rating input score 100; 28th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 90.1% of revenue deployed · 90.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 16 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $3.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $628K · 17 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 30 of 30 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 9 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 29 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 9 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 38/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 49/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 11/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 11/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.