Ocean State Research Institute Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
050440574
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Providence, RI, USA
Phone
4014573066
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$8,345,540
Expenses
$8,048,515
Assets
$3,402,054
Liabilities
$1,744,421

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SATISH SHARMA MD (PRESIDENT)
  • MARY FORD (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • MARYAM RAHAFROOZ (DATA SCIENTIST): $155,625 total reported compensation
  • MARY FORD (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $134,792 total reported compensation
  • SHERONDA PEEPLES (SR. PROJECT MANAGER): $129,961 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 purpose of osri is to advance the research mission of the department of veterans affairs through the support of research and educational related activities at the providence va medical center. Collaborative research and educational endeavors may be established with universities, for-profit companies, hospitals, charitable foundations, professional societies, the public health service or other governmental agencies, and other non-profit agencies.

What it reported doing in 2024

Research & education is an important component of the providence va healthcare system's mission and plays a key role in enhancing the health care services provided to Rhode Island's veterans. All participants in the research and education programs are committed to ensure the highest ethical and scientific standards are met so research aims are accomplished and the safety and well-being of research subjects, investigators and other employees are protected. The va providence healthcare system research program is fully accredited by the va accrediting body for human subject research and by the aaalac for animal research.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 99% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 79% for direct work, and 21% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 80
  • Transparency & Controls: 54
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 32
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 88.3%; rating input score 88
  • Program expense ratio: 92.3%; rating input score 92
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 10th 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: 50.3%; rating input score 50; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 3.6%; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.42; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.51; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 8.4%; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6.9% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 10.2% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 12.4% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 88.3% of revenue deployed · 92.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $7.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $156K · 15 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 27 of 28 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 14 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 9 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.

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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 50/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 46/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 14/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 20/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 35/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.