Path Drug Solutions

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
943384500
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2018
Forms available
Form 990 2018
Location
Seattle, WA, USA
Phone
2062853500
Rating
64
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Biomedicine, Bioengineering Research

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,972,163
Expenses
$3,576,203
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2018. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • STEPHEN B DAVIS (BOARD CHAIR & PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • STEPHEN B DAVIS (BOARD CHAIR & PRESIDENT): $728,657 total reported compensation
  • DAVID C KASLOW (DIRECTOR): $444,723 total reported compensation
  • OLIVIA D POLIUS (TREASURER & CFO): $372,582 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2018. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The mission of path drug solutions (pds) is to develop and advance safe and effective medicines for the prevention and treatment of diseases disproportionately affecting women and children in low-resource settings. We work with a variety of public- and private-sector stakeholders to build cross-sector collaborations, secure intellectual property, revisit promising drugs or drug candidates that have been set aside for nonmedical reasons (e.g., lack of earning potential), and harness scientific and manufacturing capacity in countries around the world to ensure that drugs are available, accessible, affordable, and acceptable and that supplies are sustainable to all those who need them.

What it reported doing in 2018

In november 2017, the pds board discussed dissolution pds. In 2018, a number of activities were carried out to complete the dissolution process, including product patent transfers from pds to path, engagement of legal counsel for dissolution procedures, and other administrative work. On december 31, 2018, the dissolution of pds was formally recognized by the California secretary of state.in january 2018, following the conclusion of the phase 2 clinical study of rilpivirine la, a long-acting injectable drug to prevent infection with HIV when used before exposure, pds completed all remaining study close-out activities. The investigational new drug application for rilpivirine la has been placed in an inactive status with the us food and drug administration, and the project is now finished.in 2018, pds continued work to reduce the burden of visceral leishmaniasis, also known as kala-azar. Kala-azar is a parasitic disease common in africa and asia and is almost always fatal if left untreated. Pds supported the government of nepal in active case detection using both a camp-based approach and an index case-based approach in kala-azar endemic districts. Pds also hosted an international post-kala-azar dermal leishmaniasis (pkdl) consortium meeting to provide guidance on improving diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of pkdl cases.to build clinical research capacity in india, pds worked to further develop and implement a clinical research training and mentorship program. This work was done in collaboration with three national clinical research resource centers specializing in pharmacovigilance, research ethics, and data management.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 95% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 90% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work. 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: 89
  • Transparency & Controls: 58
  • Accountability: 55
  • Sustainability: 6
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 99.1%; rating input score 99
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 0th 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: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Pass
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 98.5%; rating input score 98; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: No; rating input score 0

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 37.5%; rating input score 38; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • 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: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -20.3%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 7.4%; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -26.3% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -28.6% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -17.3% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 99.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 8 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $3.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $729K · 8 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 24 of 26 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2010 to 2018
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 3 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.

  • Moderate — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 38/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 6 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 5/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 34/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.