Regenmed Development Organization

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
202710571
IRS 990 coverage
2017–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2009
Location
Winstonsalem, NC, USA
Phone
3367164445
Rating
58
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fund Raising and/or Fund Distribution

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,133,217
Expenses
$1,423,539
Assets
$7,847,109
Liabilities
$5,172,818

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • ANTHONY ATALA MD (CHAIR): $1,738,115 total reported compensation
  • TERRY L HALES JR (VICE CHAIR & TREASURER): $1,363,334 total reported compensation
  • J REID MORGAN (DIRECTOR & ASST SECRETARY): $469,700 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

See schedule othe mission of the organization is to accelerate the discovery and development of applications of new therapies for disease and translate those therapies into treatments for patients through the science of regenerative medicine. The organization focuses on obtaining federal and other grant funds and working with other organizations developing regenerative medicine and products to accomplish its mission.

What it reported doing in 2024

The regenmed development organization (remdo) conducts research to de-risk technologies and speed up the translation of regenerative medicine technologies to clinical practice. Remdo was awarded funding for projects aimed at accelerating manufacturing innovation for regenerative medicine projects. The organization has assembled a consortium comprised of world class leaders in regenerative medicine research and development, both commerical and academic, to execute on advanced biomanufacturing initiatives. The fund ing was received from the medical technology consortium, a department of defense-funded nonprofit entity formed to conduct research and prototyping to support the us army medical research and material command.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 100% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 49% for direct work, and 51% for grants.

The verdict

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue comfortably covers expenses. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 51
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 48
  • Sustainability: 75
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 33.6%; rating input score 34
  • Program expense ratio: 97.4%; rating input score 97
  • 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: 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: 20%; rating input score 20; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: 65.6%; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.51; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.66; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 10.3%; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -8.1% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.2% per year; rating input score 100; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 15.5% per year; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 33.6% of revenue deployed · 97.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 1 of 5 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $1.7M · 5 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 21 of 21 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2017 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 13 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 34/100.
  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 20/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 14/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 29/100.