Securebio Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
883068255
IRS 990 coverage
2022–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Cambridge, MA, USA
Phone
6153798149
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Research Institutes and Public Policy Analysis

Reported finances

Revenue
$7,324,329
Expenses
$4,251,865
Assets
$8,470,365
Liabilities
$682,712

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • Jeffrey Kaufman (NAO Project Lead): $151,815 total reported compensation
  • Michael McLaren (Research Scientist): $150,415 total reported compensation
  • William Bradshaw (Secretary): $131,860 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To reduce catastrophic risks from novel biotechnologies by conducting research on pandemic prevention, detection, and mitigation.

What it reported doing in 2024

The organization is developing measurement tools to assess AI systems' potential contribution to global catastrophic biological risks and creating mitigation strategies for when AI capabilities cross specific risk thresholds. Working with government and industry partners, they aim to de-risk upcoming AI model releases against severe biological hazards. The team has already published a pre-print on biorisks associated with model weight proliferation in Large Language Models, garnering major media attention. Their ongoing projects include research on risks from frontier models, developing benchmarks to evaluate large language models' biosecurity-relevant capabilities, creating task-based assessments for frontier systems' autonomous capabilities, and implementing technical interventions for risk mitigation, such as model unlearning of dual-use biological concepts and enhancing adversarial robustness against dual-use input prompts.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 93% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 97% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. 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: 53
  • Transparency & Controls: 75
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 70
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 47.5%; rating input score 48
  • Program expense ratio: 79.6%; rating input score 80
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • 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: 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: 80%; rating input score 80; 14th 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: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 41.9%; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.99; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.08; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 17.8%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 86.2% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 38.7% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 47.1% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 47.5% of revenue deployed · 79.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 5 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 5 filed program accomplishments · $3.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $152K · 12 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 4 contractors listed · $576K reported
  • Consistency: 33 of 33 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2022 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 8 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 48/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Document-retention policy not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 15/100.