Center for Clinical Innovation Dba EnCompass Health Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
461637647
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2014–2014
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2014
Location
Half Moon Bay, CA, USA
Phone
2024879524
Rating
65
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fund Raising and/or Fund Distribution

Reported finances

Revenue
$20,000
Expenses
$1,067
Assets
$19,033
Liabilities
$100

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Alan C Hu (President & CEO)

People named in this filing

  • Alan C Hu (President & CEO)
  • Bethany Hornthal (Secretary)
  • Laura Esserman (Treasurer)

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 2014. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The Mission of the Center for Clinical Innovation is to significantly improve the patients journey and outcomes by funding innovative, patient-centered clinical research and initiatives leading to scalable and replicable results around the world.

What it reported doing in 2014

The organization was formed on November 19, 2012. To date the Center for Clinical Innovation remains inactive. We anticipate receiving funding in mid-2015 and will begin operations then as follows: Project #1: I-SPY 3 Clinical Trial process: I-SPY 3 is a ground-breaking process for conducting Phase III clinical trials for new cancer cures. It was started as a research project by the University of California at San Francisco (UCSF) Breast Cancer Center. Its transformative design results in a 3X improvement in time, cost and patient volunteers for testing of, and FDA approval for new cancer treatments (see chart below). The first service offering will be I-SPY 3 for breast cancer - a companion Phase III clinical trial network for drugs which have demonstrated a very high likelihood for success in a Phase II trial by virtue of having graduated from the breast cancer I-SPY 2 trial or another neo-adjuvant trial. As of March, 2015, there have been 9 novel breast cancer treatments which have either graduated from, or are enrolling patients in, the I-SPY 2 Trial. These drugs will all need I-SPY 3, which is the companion Phase III trial for commercial release of the drugs. Traditional Phase III Trial I-SPY 3 TrialCost $100M - $500M $60M - $200MTime 8-12 years 4-6 yearsPatients Required 1,000 6,000 600 2,000 The societal benefit of the I-SPY methodology is much faster approval of new cancer treatments and at lower costs for cancer patients. The FDA is an enthusiastic supporter of I-SPY trial methodology and many other disease groups (lung cancer, Alzheimers, melanoma, etc.) are organizing Master Trial platforms similar to I-SPY. enCompass Health Foundation will raise funds and provide grants for the I-SPY 3 researchers University of California at San Francisco to support their efforts in this regard.Project #2: BreastCancerTrials.org BreastCancerTrials.org is a non-profit service that is dedicated to providing accurate information about breast cancer clinical trials. Its patient-centered website includes trials funded by the National Cancer Institute, public research foundations, and the pharmaceutical/biotechnology industry.BreastCancerTrials.org is now nationally available at http://www.BreastCancerTrials.org. The free service is sponsored by the NCI, QuantumLeap HealthCare and the Center of Excellence for Breast Cancer Care. Women who participate in the service are guided through a process of creating a personal health record within a secure database that summarizes their cancer diagnosis and treatment.The database also includes a registry of breast cancer clinical trials with associated eligibility criteria. Trials are matched to patient data, and patients are notified of any matches that occur. They can then choose to contact researchers to learn more about these trials and, if interested, release their health record directly to a researcher for further review of eligibility. Participants have access to system support by email or phone.

Operating model

Revenue model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent revenue detail to tell how this nonprofit funds its work.
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 revenue comfortably covers expenses. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and liabilities are high compared with assets.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 41
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Sustainability: 87
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 5.3%; rating input score 5
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 94.7%; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 17.84; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: 5.3% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 7 of 7 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 5/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 44/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 57/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.