Ann's Hope Foundation Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 202344319
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2022–2022
- Forms available
- Form 990 2020, Form 990-EZ 2022
- Location
- Pewaukee, WI, USA
- Phone
- 2623051370
- Rating
- 77
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Fund Raising and/or Fund Distribution
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,186
- Expenses
- $14,835
- Assets
- $0
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2022. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
11 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- CHERI COPE (VICE PRESIDENT)
- ANN HARRINGTON (PRESIDENT)
People named in this filing
- SARA AGAMAITE (DIRECTOR)
- PEGGY GILES (DIRECTOR)
- SUZANNAH BONG (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 2022. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Raise awareness of the dangers of melanoma cancer and to raise the level of research, early detection, and prevention efforts in the community.
What it reported doing in 2022
The inception of ann's hope foundation was february 2005. The organization was created in memory of the cofounders loved ones, richard cibula and craig harasha. Today the foundation is the only melanoma foundation in the state of Wisconsin holding several events to raise funds for melanoma research and education. The foundation is dedicated to creating a community for those affected by melanoma and ultimately a cure for melanoma.the foundation provides grants to forward melanoma research and clinical trials.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Revenue has declined or grown slowly and expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 88
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 8
- Growth: 0
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 67.4%; rating input score 67
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -1,150.8%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: -15.6% per year; rating input score 0; 20th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -8.3% per year; rating input score 0; 19th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 67.4% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $10K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 11 people listed
- Consistency: 9 of 9 current checks pass
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
- Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
- 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 — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 2/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 2/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.