Cancer Recovery Foundation International

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
270398026
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2022
Forms available
Form 990 2022
Location
Hershey, PA, USA
Phone
7175762785
Rating
46
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Reported finances

Revenue
$314,698
Expenses
$402,570
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2022. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Gregory Anderson (President & CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • Gregory Anderson (President & CEO): $35,310 total reported compensation
  • Arthur Granito (CFO): $20,849 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2022. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The organization's purpose was to equip all people in preventing and surviving cancer by providing educational and support services through survival guides and informational materials as well as through support in the form of direct financial aid to individuals affected by cancer. Further to and consistent with the organization's stated purpose of equiping all people to prevent and survive cancer, survival guides and informational material were included in all aspects of CRFI's outreach. This included direct mail pledge packets, pledge collection materials, periodic newsletters, ongoing email communications, and a major website presence. Although no direct costs can be allocated to the organization's public education programs, fully sixty-five percent of associated costs can be allocated to the organization's public education outreach. Public education was the promary program service in 2022.

What it reported doing in 2022

The organization's purpose was to equip all people in preventing and surviving cancer by providing educational and support services through survival guides and informational materials as well as through support in the form of direct financial aid to individual affected by cancer.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 79% for direct work, and 21% for grants.

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: 11
  • Transparency & Controls: 88
  • Accountability: 72
  • Sustainability: 9
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 12.6%; rating input score 13
  • Program expense ratio: 9.8%; rating input score 10
  • Fundraising efficiency: $1.25 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 75%; rating input score 75; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -27.9%; rating input score 12; 12th 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: 14%; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -14.1% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -6.7% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -4.8% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 12.6% of revenue deployed · 9.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 4 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $40K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $35K · 5 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $226K reported
  • Consistency: 25 of 26 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2013 to 2022
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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 13/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 10/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 6/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 12/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 1/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 26/100.