Alamo City Cancer Council

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
203113938
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2013–2016
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2016, Form 990-N 2016
Location
San Antonio, TX, USA
Phone
2108328410
Rating
84
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Health

Reported finances

Revenue
$69,344
Expenses
$90,564
Assets
$46,665
Liabilities
$779

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DR SHARON WILKS (PRESIDENT)
  • GRETCHEN GARCEAU-KRAGH TILL 32016 (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • KIM YOUNGBLOOD (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

People named in this filing

  • JILL CARPENTER (BOARD MEMBER)
  • GRACIELA CIGARROA (BOARD MEMBER)
  • ANDREA CYTERSKI (BOARD MEMBER)

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 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The mission of the alamo city cancer council is to provide education, resources, and services for any project that supports the cause of the eradication of cancer.

What it reported doing in 2016

We will reduce disparities within the diverse populations of Texas by providing information about cancer and cancer-related services. We will increase access to information needed to make informed decisions and reach underserved populations.primarily, we will serve the residents of bexar county, Texas, and will also develop a collaborative network throughout Texas and will share generously our educational materials and promote their distribution in other Texas communities.we will provide educational seminars about cancer to health care professionals in bexar county, Texas and extend our influence by networking with other organizations in Texas.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 71% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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

STRONG - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Expenses are high relative to revenue and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 77
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Sustainability: 21
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 84.3%; rating input score 84
  • Program expense ratio: 64.9%; rating input score 65

Transparency & Controls

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

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -30.6%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.52; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 42.4%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 7.6% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.8% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -6.9% per year; rating input score 0; 25th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 84.3% of revenue deployed · 64.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $59K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 12 people listed
  • Consistency: 8 of 8 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2013 to 2016
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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: Operating margin scored 16/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 31/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 4/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 37/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.