Cancer Survivors Park Alliance

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
571085380
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Greenville, SC, USA
Phone
8642555010
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Alliance/Advocacy Organizations

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,171,197
Expenses
$635,991
Assets
$899,052
Liabilities
$27,824

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

21 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • KAY ROPER (EXECUTIVE DI): $114,904 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To serve as a catalyst for collaborative activities that engage, educate, empower and enhance the lives of anyone touched by cancer and to ensure the sustainabilityof the cancer survivors park as a central venue for carrying out that mission.

What it reported doing in 2024

Cancer survivors park alliance provides access and exposure to 100s of upstate cancer network survivorship programs in the upstate of sc. An average of 15 - 20 free survivorship programs are available online and to the public in the center for hope & healing in the cancer survivors park each month. A resource center is open on select days of the week to the over 500,000 visitors to the park each year. Community stakeholders are engaged in design and completion of park elements which includes efforts to raise necessary funds to ensure the park completes its vision to change the way we live with cancer.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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 - 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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 44
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 66
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 37.4%; rating input score 37
  • Program expense ratio: 66.2%; rating input score 66
  • Fundraising efficiency: $4.67 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 16; 16th 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 45.7%; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.41; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: Limited

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -14.6% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.8% per year; rating input score 100; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -10% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 37.4% of revenue deployed · 66.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 20 of 20 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $421K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $115K · 21 people listed
  • Consistency: 25 of 25 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 37/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 16/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 54/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 58/100.