Pacific Coast Tissue Bank

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
954088389
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2016
Forms available
Form 990 2016
Location
Los Angeles, CA, USA
Phone
2138408795
Rating
53
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Organ and Tissue Banks

Reported finances

Revenue
$438,389
Expenses
$73,532
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

2 people listed

People named in this filing

  • ELI GENDLER (MEDICAL DIRECTOR)
  • RICHARD HUBER (DIRECTOR)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The procurement, storage, processing, and distribution of cadaveric tissue.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 100% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
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

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 40
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 35
  • Sustainability: 55
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 14.6%; rating input score 15
  • Program expense ratio: 94.7%; rating input score 95
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 50%; rating input score 50; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 14
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 83.2%; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -41.3% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -35.4% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -49.7% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 14.6% of revenue deployed · 94.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 1 of 2 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $70K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 2 people listed
  • Consistency: 17 of 17 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2011 to 2016
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 15/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 6 not reported.
  • Review — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 50/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 1/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization is recorded as not currently operating in California.