Elizabeth Bennett Rice Fund A/k/a Madam Ovary

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
262561463
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2012–2016
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2016
Location
New Castle, NH, USA
Phone
6034318295
Rating
61
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Diseases of Specific Organs

Reported finances

Revenue
$7,262
Expenses
$877
Assets
$78,556
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • PAUL R DAVIS (PRESIDENT)
  • MARGOT THOMPSON (VICE PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • PAUL R DAVIS (PRESIDENT)
  • PETER RICE (DIRECTOR)
  • KELLY MCDEVITT (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 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Madam ovary's goal is to fund research projects focusing on early detection of ovarian cancer. The other part of "madam's" mission is to increase awareness and educate women and their doctors.

What it reported doing in 2016

Madam ovary in accordance with its goal to eliminate ovarian cancer by providing resources to clinical studies, providing education on cancer symptoms, and development of an early detection protocol of ovarian cancer produced and distributed an information card and a brochure regarding the warning signs of ovarian cancer.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 97% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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 program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 45
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 91
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 12.1%; rating input score 12
  • 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: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 87.9%; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 89.57; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -22.8% per year; rating input score 0; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -29.1% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.5% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 12.1% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $877 in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 8 of 8 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2012 to 2016
  • 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 12/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.