Cancer Care Cntr of York County
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 201600381
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2017
- Forms available
- Form 990 2017
- Location
- Portland, ME, USA
- Phone
- 2076617001
- Rating
- 70
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Community Mental Health Center
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $3,005,405
- Expenses
- $4,783,595
- Assets
- $0
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
11 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Louise Baca (Executive Director)
Highest reported compensation
- Albert G Swallow (Frmr Treasurer): $779,987 total reported compensation
- Edward J McGeachey (Vice Chair): $646,688 total reported compensation
- Sue Hadiaris (Secretary): $285,792 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Provided radiation therapy treatments to cancer patients.
What it reported doing in 2017
Cancer care center of york county (cccyc) was established to provide services to oncology patients in southern Maine, including education, treatment and support. Cccyc was a collaboration of two tax-exempt hospitals: southern Maine health care and Maine medical center. At the south sanford location, southern Maine healthcare provided medical oncology; Maine medical center provided iv therapy/chemotherapy. Cccyc was the only radiation therapy center in southern Maine and had the newest technology in the state of Maine and seacoast New Hampshire. Cccyc also provided education and outreach programs regarding cancer care and other important health issues. Radiation therapy had approximately 13,000 visits each year. Cccyc accepted all patients including those with government payor coverage, such as medicare and medicaid, commercial insurances and self-paying patients. A charity (or free) care and sliding scale policy had been adopted to meet the needs of patients with lower incomes.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 100% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 45% for direct work, and 55% for grants.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 88
- Transparency & Controls: 73
- Accountability: 42
- Sustainability: 5
- Growth: 80
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 96.1%; rating input score 96
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 25%; rating input score 25; 6th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -59.2%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
- Officer compensation ratio: 6.6%; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 21.5% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 3.2% per year; rating input score 100; 41st percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -0.7% per year; rating input score 0; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 96.1% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 2 of 8 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $4.6M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $780K · 11 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $1.3M reported
- Consistency: 24 of 24 current checks pass
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
- Filing history: 9 filing years from 2009 to 2017
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
- Related organizations: 7 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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 25/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 9 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 1/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 38/100.