Proteogenomics Research Institute for Systems Medicine

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
800418281
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
San Diego, CA, USA
Phone
8584509999
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Research Institutes and/or Public Policy Analysis

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$5,068,857
Expenses
$4,889,413
Assets
$657,569
Liabilities
$840,885

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JAN SCHNITZER MD (President & CEO)
  • L JEAN REMMER (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • JAN SCHNITZER MD (President & CEO): $274,821 total reported compensation
  • ADRIAN CHRASTINA (ASST. PROFESSOR): $169,455 total reported compensation
  • BOGDAN OLENYUK (PROFESSOR): $162,827 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Proteogenomics Research Institute for Systems Medicine (PRISM) is a non-profit biomedical research institute focused on the development of innovative treatments for a wide spectrum of human diseases, including cancer.

What it reported doing in 2024

PRISM is focused on the development of innovative treatments for a wide spectrum of human diseases, including cancer. PRISM employs the principles of systems science, an ordered and interdisciplinary approach to study the relationships between healthy and diseased tissues. PRISM's state-of-the-art facilities combine advanced technologies in proteomics, genomics and in vivo imaging to discover and validate novel therapeutic targets. PRISM develops novel molecules and probes which allow dynamic, non-invasive functional imaging of healthy and diseased tissue in vivo. These molecules and probes are the core component of new therapies, which specifically target diseased organs while sparing normal tissues and cells. In this way, PRISM is developing more effective, less toxic treatments that extend life and provide a better quality of life for patients diagnosed with chronic and life-threatening diseases.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 97% 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. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 73
  • Transparency & Controls: 74
  • Accountability: 66
  • Sustainability: 24
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 80.8%; rating input score 81
  • Program expense ratio: 83.8%; rating input score 84
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 50%; rating input score 50; 8th 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: 3.5%; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.13; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.28; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 26.7%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 12.8% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 11.6% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.9% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 80.8% of revenue deployed · 83.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 2 of 4 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $4.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $275K · 10 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 28 of 28 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 12 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • Review — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 50/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 4/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 46/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 3/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 7/100.