Asco Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
833561693
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2019
Location
Alexandria, VA, USA
Phone
5714831300
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Chambers of Commerce & Business Leagues

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$16,561,916
Expenses
$16,186,280
Assets
$27,886,472
Liabilities
$34,333,269

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

Leadership & pay

27 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CLIFFORD A HUDIS MD (CEO)
  • KRISTA BARNES (VICE PRESIDENT, MEMBER SERVICES)

Highest reported compensation

  • CLIFFORD A HUDIS MD (CEO): $1,139,916 total reported compensation
  • MELISSA TAI ESQ (SECRETARY): $425,279 total reported compensation
  • KRISTA BARNES (VICE PRESIDENT, MEMBER SERVICES): $364,585 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Asco association promotes the common business interests of its members by: (1) advocating for policies that improve the quality of cancer care; (2) maintaining the highest standards of oncology medical care through programs supporting education, (continued in schedule o) research, and quality improvement; and (3) increasing awareness among the medical community, patients, and the public of challenges faced by oncology medical professionals that may affect quality of cancer care.

What it reported doing in 2024

See schedule o: accreditation & certification: the association conducts an accreditation program that promotes the practice of its members by maintaining and improving the quality of medical care available to the public and maintaining high standards of excellence in oncology. The quality oncology practice initiative (qopi) certification program ("qcp") provides a three-year certification recognizing high-quality and safe care for outpatient hematology-oncology practices. The qcp standards were adapted from the chemotherapy administration safety standards codeveloped by the association's related organization, the american society of clinical oncology, inc. (the society), a section 501(c)(3) organization, and the oncology nursing society (ons). They are intended to provide saftey to both patients and the care delivery staff by reducing the risk of errors and promoting the safe handling of chemotherapy agents. Participating practices receive site surveys by experienced oncology professionals to assess compliance with all qcp standards through interviews, observation, and medical record reviews. Participants receive reports documenting their level of compliance with each certification standard and making recommendations or requirements for improved care. Qcp certification recognizes high performing practices and is not required for any professional licensing, nor is it required of the association's members. 272 hematology-oncology practices consisting of 900 sites of service were actively certified in 2024. The asco certified certification recognizes patient-centered cancer care delivery adhering to the oncology medical home standards codeveloped by asco and the community oncolgy alliance (coa). Similar to qcp, participating practices receive site surveys by experienced oncology professionals to assess compliance with all asco certified standards through interviews, observation, and medical record reviews. Participants receive reports documenting their level of compliance with each certification standard and making recommendations or requirements for improved care. Once certified, participants are monitored annually for continuous quality improvement and resurveyed every 3 years. Asco certified is not required for any professional licensing, nor is it required of the association's members. 16 hematology oncology practices consisting of 143 sites of service were certified in 2024.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 96% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
  • Transparency & Controls: 36
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 39
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • Program expense ratio: Limited
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 77.8%; rating input score 78; 0th 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: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Grant itemization coverage: 23.6%; rating input score 24; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th 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: 2.3%; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.72; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.23; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 12.1%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 4.6% per year; rating input score 100; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 42.1% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $1.1M · 27 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 3 contractors listed · $1.6M reported
  • Consistency: 10 of 12 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 8 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 5 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 scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 24/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 43/100.
  • 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.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: CEO compensation review process not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 56/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 3/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 14/100.