Cincinnati Cancer Foundation Inc C/o William L Barrett Md
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 814093626
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2018–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025
- Location
- Cincinnati, OH, USA
- Phone
- 5134840075
- Rating
- 77
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Health
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $7,507,151
- Expenses
- $6,040,995
- Assets
- $13,386,683
- Liabilities
- $1,238,858
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
25 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- LANA UHRIG (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- PHIL LEMING (MEDICAL STAFF): $727,771 total reported compensation
- ABDUL JAZIEH (MEDICAL STAFF): $573,191 total reported compensation
- LANA UHRIG (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $327,099 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The purpose of the cincinnati cancer foundation is to reduce the suffering and mortality associated with cancer in the greater cincinnati region and beyond by providing funding for research, improving clinical care, and educational initiatives.
What it reported doing in 2025
The organization partnered with ride cincinnati foundation in 2025, to receive a grant from ride cincinnati foundation from the proceeds of the ride cincinnati fundraising event. A portion of the grant received by the organization from ride cincinnati foundation was then further granted out through the organization to other local non-profits that are doing work in the areas of cancer research, education and care. The organization is continuing to expand their reach by granting out funds to other non-profit organizations that align with their purpose to reduce the suffering and mortality associated with cancer in the greater cincinnati region and beyond by funding reasearch, improving clinical care and educational initiatives.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 90% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 87% 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.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 67
- Transparency & Controls: 75
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 58
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 67.6%; rating input score 68
- Program expense ratio: 80.3%; rating input score 80
- Fundraising efficiency: $7.84 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Pass
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Missing
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- 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: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 19.5%; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.22; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.09; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 51.9%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 34.2% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 19.1% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 18% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 67.6% of revenue deployed · 80.3% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $4.8M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $728K · 25 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 40 of 41 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 8 filing years from 2018 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 38 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 27 filed related-organization links
- 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: Fundraising efficiency scored 27/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 1/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 49/100.