Subcutaneous Drug Development & Delivery Consortium Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
850837695
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Beaverton, OR, USA
Phone
5036190505
Rating
48
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Boards of Trade

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,042,500
Expenses
$862,745
Assets
$1,406,406
Liabilities
$373,267

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DONNA FRENCH (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • DONNA FRENCH (PRESIDENT)
  • SACHIN MITTAL (VICE PRESIDE)
  • DAVID KANG (TREASURER)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Our mission is to collaboratively advance the most pressing issues and opportunities in subcutaneous dosage and delivery in a precompetitive manner.

What it reported doing in 2025

A.patient preference & experience: completed the design and development of the conjoint tool and survey on patient preference for subcutaneous drug delivery; fielding is complete with over 500 responses recorded from the us, eu, and japan, and analysis is underway. B.high dose high volume: completed an industry-wide survey on "harmonization of pain methodologies for sc administration-; draft manuscript "integrated cmc road map for development of hdhv products- and the "hdhv selection criteria matrix" are expected to be published in 2026 following internal sc consortium review. C.clinical design & regulatory strategy: published a cross-company survey manuscript on clinical and regulatory strategy in the journal of controlled release and conducted a workshop on "development pathways and considerations for subcutaneous biologic formulations" at the crs 2025 annual meeting & exposition in philadelphia. D.sustainability: completed and presented results of the industry benchmarking survey at multiple conferences throughout the year, including a poster presentation at the pda ups conference in vienna, and submitted a manuscript for publication in the on-drug delivery journal. E.immunogenicity: enhanced sc consortium awareness by highlighting immunogenicity sub-team activities at the immunogenicity and bioassay summit, authored the immunogenicity portion of "debunking the myths of sc delivery,- and expects manuscript submission before year-end. F.bioavailability: submission of "debunking the myths of sc delivery," describing advancements and opportunities in sc bioavailability, to the journal of controlled release; a second publication, "predicting human subcutaneous bioavailability of monoclonal antibodies using a novel open flow microperfusion (ofm) porcine model," is under review.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 100% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

MIXED - 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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 93
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 61
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 17.2%; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.63; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.27; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 14.6% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 13.4% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $394K reported
  • Consistency: 12 of 13 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2020 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 58/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 21/100.