Usona Institute Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
471349730
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Madison, WI, USA
Phone
6082787662
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Medical Research N.E.C.

Reported finances

Revenue
$7,949,536
Expenses
$33,737,459
Assets
$148,230,819
Liabilities
$102,614,654

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • WILLIAM A LINTON (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • MIKE DAVIS (CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER): $496,806 total reported compensation
  • JOHN LEBLANC (TREASURER): $340,486 total reported compensation
  • ROBERT EZZELL (DIRECTOR RA PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS): $291,917 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Usona institute has been organized to operate exclusively for charitable, scientific, and educational purposes, including, but not limited to, conducting and supporting medical, scientific, and social science research and education on medicines and practices to relieve mental and physical suffering and to improve the quality of life and management of health care through the application of treatments using safe and effective products, including those derived from plants and related materials. In addition, the institute qualifies as a "medical research organization" under section 170(b)(1)(a)(iii), as it has a principal purpose of conducting medical research and will be primarily engaged in medical research in conjunction with university of Wisconsin hospitals and clinics.

What it reported doing in 2024

Psil301 studyusona institute is conducting a phase 3 clinical trial, "a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, multicenter study to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of psilocybin in adults with major depressive disorder (mdd)," also known as the uaspire trial. This research seeks to investigate the potential benefits and safety of psilocybin as a treatment option for individuals with major depressive disorder as quickly and safely as possible.2024 accomplishmentsthe uaspire psil301 phase 3 trial added new sites across north america, including veterans affairs (va) sites, to enhance patient diversity and strengthen data reliability to support regulatory approval and ensure broad applicability of findings. Ongoing collaboration with the fda under our breakthrough therapy designation, in preparing for nda submission upon completion of phase 3. The cmc team scaled up api production, maintained stringent quality controls, and secured new manufacturing partnerships to support high-quality psilocybin production in anticipation of market access. Facilitator training expanded across all phase 3 sites to ensure consistent in-patient care. Early market access efforts included partnerships with diverse stakeholders focusing on underserved populations, enhancing infrastructure and supply chain resilience for equitable access.guided by a diversity steering committee, the plan incorporated insights from community outreach and diversity experts to recruit underrepresented populations and foster inclusion in the psil301 phase 3 study.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 65% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 99% 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.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 87
  • Transparency & Controls: 61
  • Accountability: 61
  • Sustainability: 31
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 93.3%; rating input score 93
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 86.7%; rating input score 87; 2nd 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: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Pass
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 97.7%; rating input score 98; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 60%; rating input score 60; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: -324.4%; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.39; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.69; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.4%; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 30.8% per year; rating input score 100; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 23.4% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 37.1% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 93.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 5 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $31.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $497K · 12 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $150K reported
  • Consistency: 36 of 38 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2015 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 9 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 6 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 13/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 44/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.