Breast Cancer Emergency Fund

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
203203899
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2019
Forms available
Form 990 2019
Location
San Francisco, CA, USA
Phone
4159326020
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Voluntary Health Associations & Medical Disciplines N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$183,960
Expenses
$314,631
Assets
$17,246
Liabilities
$20,376

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2019. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2019. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To provide quick and compassionate emergency financial assistance to low-income people battling breast cancer in order to cover basic human needs, lessen financial burdens and improve quality of life.

What it reported doing in 2019

In the 2019-20 year, Breast Cancer Emergency Fund helped 95 low-income women manage their families' financial crisis of a breast cancer diagnosis and its difficult treatment regimen. In addition to providing financial relief through payments directly to landlords, utility companies, and medical providers, BCEF offered financial assessment, counseling and referral to other sources of financial support, lessening the stress of unpaid bills and allowing clients to focus fully on their health and recovery. During the year, BCEF was in the process of winding down operations.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 61% for direct work, and 39% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 86
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 7
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 79.3%; rating input score 79
  • Fundraising efficiency: $9.14 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -71%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.05; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.18; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 11.9%; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -12% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -15.6% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -25.8% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 79.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $249K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $37K · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 26 of 26 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2013 to 2019
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 37/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 3/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 4/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 5/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 30/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.
  • High — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization is recorded as not currently operating in California.