Cancer Care Connection

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
510398061
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Wilmington, DE, USA
Phone
3022669686
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Hot Line, Crisis Intervention Services

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$177,248
Expenses
$623,930
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JANET TEIXEIRA (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • RENNA VAN OOT (BOARD MEMBER): $199,158 total reported compensation
  • JANET TEIXEIRA (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $48,036 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To combine compassionate, personalized attention with information technology to provide support to people affected by cancer.

What it reported doing in 2025

Cancer care connection provides personalized professional services to clients who seek cancer-related information and/or support for themselves or loved ones. Phone-based services are provided at no cost to the client. Cancer care connection's oncology social workers provide telephone-based social work services that help individuals navigate information sources, seek answers, and build coping and self-management skills. Cancer care connection also provides face-to-face patient counseling on-site at regional cancer centers to address cancer-related distress. Since the inception of cancer care connection in 2000, the organization has served thousands of individuals.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 77% 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. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 93
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 42
  • Sustainability: 4
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 96.3%; rating input score 96
  • Fundraising efficiency: $15.13 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: Limited
  • Governance controls: 8 of 8 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: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -252%; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.2%; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 7.2% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -1% per year; rating input score 0; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.7% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 96.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $601K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $199K · 5 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 25 of 25 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2015 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 2 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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 48/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 1/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 33/100.