Rogosin Institute

Legal name: The Rogosin Institute Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
133184198
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
New York, NY, USA
Phone
212-746-1551
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Research Institutes and/or Public Policy Analysis

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$122,755,452
Expenses
$121,962,875
Assets
$111,799,909
Liabilities
$95,176,656

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

Leadership & pay

34 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DAVID WYMAN (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • WILHELMINA MANZANO (DIRECTOR): $2,410,008 total reported compensation
  • SHAUN E SMITH (SECRETARY): $1,961,951 total reported compensation
  • KAREN WESTERVELT (VICE CHAIR): $1,610,434 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 provide patients with the highest quality of care by combining cutting-edge treatment options and innovative clinical research with an expert team of compassionate physicians, dedicated to the success of every patient under our care.

What it reported doing in 2024

RESEARCH: basic science and clinical research program studying kidney disease, renal replacement therapy (dialysis, kidney transplantation) and regenerative medicine. The program develops and tests new therapeutic modalities for kidney disease and its causes, including diabetes, lipid disorders and cardiovascular disease.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 96% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 98% 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 - 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 few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 74
  • Transparency & Controls: 73
  • Accountability: 58
  • Sustainability: 30
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 79.9%; rating input score 80
  • Program expense ratio: 80.3%; rating input score 80
  • Fundraising efficiency: $5.77 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 25th 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: 99.4%; rating input score 99; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 35%; rating input score 35; 10th 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: Fail
    • 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: 0.6%; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.92; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.85; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.4%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4.8% per year; rating input score 100; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.5% per year; rating input score 100; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.8% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 8 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 2 operating locations identified
  • Where the money goes: 79.9% of revenue deployed · 80.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 20 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $98M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $2.4M · 34 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $8.1M reported
  • Consistency: 39 of 40 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 10 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, executive pay, and related organizations
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 15 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 60 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.

  • Moderate — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 35/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 25/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 35/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 36/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: CEO compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 14/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 15/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.