Stowers Institute for Medical Research
Legal name: Stowers Resource Management Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 412186719
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2011–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
- Location
- Kansas City, MO, US
- Phone
- 816.926.4000
- Rating
- 88
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Standard
- Sector
- Single Organization Support
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $198,300,289
- Expenses
- $164,615,069
- Assets
- $2,055,922,131
- Liabilities
- $300,701,619
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
28 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- RICHARD W BROWN (DIR/PRESIDENT/CEO DECEASED 3/27/25)
Highest reported compensation
- RICHARD W BROWN (DIR/PRESIDENT/CEO DECEASED 3/27/25): $3,206,337 total reported compensation
- ALEJANDRO SNCHEZ ALVARADO (DIRECTOR): $1,934,730 total reported compensation
- CHARLES GERMAN (DIRECTOR/EVP/GENERAL COUNSEL): $1,246,306 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 make a significant contribution to human health through world-class research.
What it reported doing in 2024
Management, administrative and operation support services - srm provides management support to simr that involves assisting in planning for the strategic direction of simr, operational planning, and the development and implementation of strategic business plans and budgets. Srm also provides additional administrative and operational support services to simr and gssimr that includes accounting, finance, human resources, information technology, and other support activities, for which srm allocated costs to simr in the amount of $38,434,417 as reported on part viii statement of revenue line 2a, with related information on schedule o.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Investment-supported. 79% of the money available for current operations came from recurring investment income.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 69% of its reported program spending out as grants.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 87
- Transparency & Controls: 96
- Accountability: 77
- Sustainability: 77
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 95.6%; rating input score 96
- Program expense ratio: 94.9%; rating input score 95
- Fundraising efficiency: $3.97 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 5 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 83
- Compensation committee: Pass
- Independent consultant: Pass
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Pass
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 60%; rating input score 60; 16th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- 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: 17%; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 12.49; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.15; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 6.5%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 1.7% per year; rating input score 100; 13th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 0.7% per year; rating input score 100; 7th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 3.6% per year; rating input score 100; 25th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 4 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 95.6% of revenue deployed · 94.9% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 9 of 15 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $156.2M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $3.2M · 28 people listed · 5 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $3.9M reported
- Consistency: 37 of 37 current checks pass
- Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, executive pay, and related organizations
- Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 17 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 10 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.
- 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.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 16/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 9/100.