Cancer Pain Research Consortium C/O Heather Richter
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 463290348
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2013–2018
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2018
- Location
- Saginaw, MI, USA
- Phone
- 8163632500
- Rating
- 79
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Health
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $157,933
- Expenses
- $231,539
- Assets
- $5,871
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2018. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
7 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Brian Bruel MD (Immediate Past President)
- Erich Richter (President)
- Sanjeet Narang (President Elect)
People named in this filing
- Brian Bruel MD (Immediate Past President)
- Erich Richter (President)
- Heather Richter (Secretary)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2018. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Cancer Pain Research Consortium is organized to:1. Educate and set standards for healthcare providers in the best practices of cancer pain management.2. Coordinate the conduct of clinical trials that evaluate and improve cancer pain control.3. Create a cancer pain resource guide.
What it reported doing in 2018
Cancer Pain Research Consortium was organized in 2013 and received grants for the creation of a cancer pain resouce guide.In the current year the Consortium conducted a conference amoung cancer treatment specialists to collaborate on the most current treatment options
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 92% 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
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 80
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 19
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 90.9%; rating input score 91
- Program expense ratio: 62%; rating input score 62
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -46.6%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.03; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 24.9% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 37.7% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 28% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 90.9% of revenue deployed · 62% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $144K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
- Consistency: 8 of 8 current checks pass
- Schedules: 2 filed schedules
- Filing history: 6 filing years from 2013 to 2018
- 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.
Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 2/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 4/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.