Doreen Katz Memorial Cancer Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
454089832
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2014
Location
Denver, CO, USA
Phone
7205309482
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Patient Services - Entertainment, Recreation

Reported finances

Revenue
$58,367
Expenses
$17,004
Assets
$278,264
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Adam Katz (Executive Director)

People named in this filing

  • Cathy Murtha (Board Member)
  • Tanya Mabie (Board Member)
  • Micke Long (Board Member)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

The foundation focuses on children whose parents are diagnosed with any form of cancer. We provide grants to cover fees now charged by schools directly to families for everyday services like advanced placement classes science music art field trips all day kindergarten and many others for our families K-12. In addition we have aligned with several therapeutic organizations to offer their services so each child has a voice outside the home. We have been working with families since 2013 and returned to our roots in 2025 by closing our branches in Arizona Illinois and Utah and focusing out of our domiciled state of Colorado.

What it reported doing in 2025

The foundation provides grants to help families cover the cost of education now being charged directly to them when a parent has any form of cancer. In todays world schools are charging families directly for most anything a child could want to do during the school day. Fees exist for advanced placement classes field trips science classes lab fees full day kindergarten playing sports or musical instruments and many more. Families dealing with the high costs of cancer treatments and loss of income due to short or long term disability if they are able to keep their job are often faced with the decision of paying for their childrens education or their life saving cancer treatment. We take away the stress of this decision K-12 for our families and also provide a therapist to each family so the children have a voice outside the home during this difficult time. We are now working with 95 families in Colorado,20 in Arizona in 4 Illinois and 18 in Utah. We were registered in each state but decided to close and outside of Colorado and continue to focus from there.

Operating model

Revenue model
Affiliate-supported. 91% of the money available for current operations came from contributions from related organizations.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 39
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 81
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 17.2%; rating input score 17
  • Program expense ratio: 59.2%; rating input score 59
  • Fundraising efficiency: $97.28 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 88; 88th 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 81st 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 70.9%; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 16.36; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6.2% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.7% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 17.2% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 17.2% of revenue deployed · 59.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $10K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 42 of 42 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2020 to 2025
  • 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 17/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 59/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 58/100.