Cancer Fund of America Inc C/o Receivership Management Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
581766061
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2015
Forms available
Form 990 2015
Location
Brentwood, TN, USA
Phone
6153734336
Rating
41
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Health

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,057,882
Expenses
$3,291,589
Assets
$1,332,816
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JAMES REYNOLDS SR (PRESIDENT/CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • JAMES REYNOLDS SR (PRESIDENT/CEO): $250,140 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To provide direct financial aid in the form of products and other support and services to financially indigent cancer patients and their families. In addition, the organization provides products to hospices, other health care providers and various non-profit community service organizations within and outside the united states, which aid the ill, needy and infants. Furthermore, the organization helps disseminate information concerning the early detection and prevention of cancer.

What it reported doing in 2015

Patient and community services - financial and other assistance to cancer patients, their caregivers, and community organizations that provide services to ill and needy individuals.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 89% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 71% for direct work, and 29% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 13
  • Transparency & Controls: 67
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 27
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 15.1%; rating input score 15
  • Program expense ratio: 13.9%; rating input score 14
  • Fundraising efficiency: $1.27 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 11th 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: 92.4%; rating input score 92; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 75%; rating input score 75; 13th 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: -7.6%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.4; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 7.6%; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -73.2% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -40.4% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -21.4% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 15.1% of revenue deployed · 13.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 4 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $458K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $250K · 4 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 3 contractors listed · $2.1M reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 33 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2012 to 2015
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 15/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 14/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 4/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 14/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 19/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 31/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.