Cancer Genomics Consortium
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 273232063
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2017–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2016, Form 990-N 2011
- Location
- Fletcher, NC, USA
- Phone
- 6087722963
- Rating
- 81
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Fund Raising and/or Fund Distribution
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $511,818
- Expenses
- $498,411
- Assets
- $571,996
- Liabilities
- $84,722
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
13 people listed
People named in this filing
- ANGELA LAGER PHD FACMG (SECRETARY)
- MEGAN FORREST PHD (JUNIOR BOARD)
- WESLEY GOAR PHD (JUNIOR BOARD)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The cancer genomics consortium (cgc) is committed to providing high quality education and promoting best laboratory practices in clinical cancer genomics.
What it reported doing in 2025
Other programs - the cgc early career initiative committee organizes and promotes initiatives within cgc to develop a community, facilitate networking, and promote the engagement of early career members. The goals of the cgc early career committee is to develop a community among early career members of the cgc and provide resources including networking opportunities, mentorship, board exam preparation, job search advice, and social events. The early career initiative committee liaises with other cgc committees, including the education, membership, program, and communications, in order to further the interests of early career members. In addition, cgc has webinars series that focuses on topics of high interest for cgc members and attendees of the cgc annual meeting, including implementation of new technologiesin clinical genomic testing, standards and resources for interpretation of sequence and copy number variants, gremline predispostions to cancer, and novel approaches for detection of structural variants in constitutional and cancer samples.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 93% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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.
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 expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 74
- Transparency & Controls: 90
- Accountability: 88
- Sustainability: 44
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 81.5%; rating input score 81
- Program expense ratio: 86.9%; rating input score 87
- Fundraising efficiency: $1.27 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 4; 4th 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: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 2.6%; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.15; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.15; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 12.7% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 10.1% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 10.8% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 81.5% of revenue deployed · 86.9% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $433K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 13 people listed
- Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $194K reported
- Consistency: 20 of 20 current checks pass
- Schedules: 2 filed schedules
- Filing history: 9 filing years from 2017 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- 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: Fundraising efficiency scored 4/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 38/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 47/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 29/100.