Breast Cancer Prevention Partners

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
943155886
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
San Francisco, CA, USA
Phone
4153468223
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Health

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,694,152
Expenses
$3,288,325
Assets
$2,365,197
Liabilities
$954,865

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

Leadership & pay

25 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SUZANNE PRICE (President & CEO)
  • KIMBERLY COMER MULQUEEN (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • NANCY BUERMEYER (DIR PROGRAM/POLICY): $139,527 total reported compensation
  • RAINBOW RUBIN (DIR OF SCIENCE): $137,548 total reported compensation
  • JANET NUDELMAN (SR DIR PRGM/POLICY): $133,780 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Founded in 1992, Breast Cancer Prevention Partners (BCPP) works to prevent breast cancer by eliminating exposure to toxic chemicals and radiation linked to the disease. (CONTINUED ON SCHEDULE O)

What it reported doing in 2024

NATIONAL AND STATE POLICY AND PROGRAMS: BCPP has over two decades of experience developing and implementing successful state and federal policy initiatives focused on preventing exposures to unsafe chemicals linked to increased rates of breast cancer and other diseases. BCPP advocates for legislative and regulatory public health policies at the local, state and federal level to protect the public against unsafe chemical exposures. Our sophisticated understanding of the political and regulatory landscape and our track record of developing successful policy initiatives makes BCPP uniquely qualified to lead cutting-edge public policy initiatives, and to serve as a trusted resource to state and federal decision-makers.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 98% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 99% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 62
  • Transparency & Controls: 78
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 42
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 63%; rating input score 63
  • Program expense ratio: 70.8%; rating input score 71
  • Fundraising efficiency: $6.98 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 51.4%; rating input score 51; 16th 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: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: 11%; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.72; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.4; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 22%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0.3% per year; rating input score 100; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.2% per year; rating input score 100; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.2% per year; rating input score 100; 20th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 63% of revenue deployed · 70.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 19 of 19 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $2.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $140K · 25 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed
  • Consistency: 31 of 32 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2014 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 8 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 51/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 26/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 27/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 10/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 26/100.