Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia Research Education and Support Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
223755684
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Union, NJ, USA
Phone
9083640272
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,204,352
Expenses
$1,127,338
Assets
$1,077,723
Liabilities
$178,208

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

22 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DINA MATOS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • DINA MATOS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $190,227 total reported compensation
  • BEATRIZ PEREIRA (DIRECTOR FINANCE): $105,145 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Cares foundation is a nonprofit organization committed to improving the lives of families and individuals affected by congenital adrenal hyperplasia (cah) through proactively advancing research for a better understanding of cah, better treatments and a cure; educating the public and healthcare professionals about all forms of cah; advocating for universal newborn screening; immediate, appropriate emergency medical treatment; and comprehensive lifelong care; as well as support services and resources vital to the cah community worldwide.

What it reported doing in 2025

Family support & education provides educational materials and information for living with the daily challenges of congenital adrenal hyperplasia (cah). Our tools help those affected by cah to better care and advocate for themselves and their families. Our conferences enable our community to have direct access to the top experts in the country and provide opportunites for connecting with others.

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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 76
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 39
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 78.7%; rating input score 79
  • Program expense ratio: 83.5%; rating input score 84
  • Fundraising efficiency: $10.22 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 6.4%; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.96; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.17; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 26.2%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 8.1% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.9% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 12.3% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 78.7% of revenue deployed · 83.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 20 of 20 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 17 filed program accomplishments · $942K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $190K · 22 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 23 of 24 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 36/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 48/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: CEO compensation review process not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 42/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 10/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 28/100.