Chris Cj Johnson Foundation Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 462460012
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2025–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2024
- Location
- Sugar Land, TX, USA
- Phone
- 8327218998
- Rating
- 43
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Cancer
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $95,284
- Expenses
- $57,089
- Assets
- $106,279
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
6 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- RITCHIE JOHNSON (PRESIDENT/CEO)
- MARC JOHNSON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
People named in this filing
- RITCHIE JOHNSON (PRESIDENT/CEO)
- MARC JOHNSON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
- CURTIS THREAT (SECRETARY/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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The mission of the Chris CJ Johnson Foundation Inc. is to advocate for individuals diagnosed with Renal Medullary Carcinoma (RMC) and to reduce health disparities associated with this rare disease through awareness, education, and support of medical research initiatives.
What it reported doing in 2025
Other program services during the year included community awareness initiatives, fundraising events supporting research and advocacy, and patient outreach and education programs related to Renal Medullary Carcinoma. These activities were conducted to increase public awareness of the disease, support affected individuals and families, and further the organizations charitable mission. Program service expenses associated with these activities, excluding grants and scholarships reported on Line 30, totaled $28,088.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- Distribution model
- Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.
The verdict
MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue comfortably covers expenses. 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: 0
- Transparency & Controls: 100
- Sustainability: 66
- Growth: NotEnoughData
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
- Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
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: 40.1%; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.86; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: Limited
- Asset growth: Limited
Details
- Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 3 filed program accomplishments
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed
- Consistency: 7 of 8 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules
- 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.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part III transfer expenses within program total did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.