Vineyard Center for Clinical Resear C/o Michael Loberg

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
472061458
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2015–2015
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2015
Location
Vineyard Haven, MA, USA
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Research Institutes and/or Public Policy Analysis

Reported finances

Revenue
$73,475
Expenses
$69,338
Assets
$4,137

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

People named in this filing

  • MICHAEL LOBERG PHD (CHAIRMAN)
  • JAMES BUTTERICK MD (DIRECTOR)
  • MICHAEL JACOBS MD (DIRECTOR)

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

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Vccr functions as martha's vineyard sole facility capable of performing and collecting human clinical data. These data are being used to develop new procedures to better diagnose and treat diseases common to residents of martha's vineyard. Current research efforts are focused on the development of new laboratory procedures to better diagnose and manage tick-borne diseases. These laboratory tests, once developed and validated, will then be used by vccr to study and ultimately vaildate new treatment modalities capable of improving clinical outcomes for patients with tick born illnesses.

What it reported doing in 2015

Participating in a program to aide other investigators in their studies of tick born illnesses by collecting collecting blood samples, storing samples and making available to outside investigators to aide in their basis research.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 100% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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. Total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 86
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 36
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 83.7%; rating input score 84
  • Program expense ratio: 88.7%; rating input score 89

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 5.6%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.06; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: 83.7% of revenue deployed · 88.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 4 filed program accomplishments · $61K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 6 of 6 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 7/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 57/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 57/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.