Expect Miracles Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
204127495
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Boston, MA, USA
Phone
6179383484
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Public Foundations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,548,633
Expenses
$3,678,296
Assets
$1,726,119
Liabilities
$1,257,229

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

35 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • FRANK HEAVEY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • FRANK STRAUSS (PRESIDENT/CHAIR)
  • GARY ENOS (VICE PRESIDENT/DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • FRANK HEAVEY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $333,698 total reported compensation
  • ANN MANION (MANAGING DIRECTOR): $179,960 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Expect miracles foundation rallies the financial services industry and byeond to invest in life-saving cancer research while advancing the financial and emotional health of people impacted by cancer. We are a 501(c)(3) public charity.

What it reported doing in 2024

Dana-farber cancer institute: expect miracles foundation is a major supporter of the heart of dana-farber cancer institute's revolutionary research and development model, the robert and rene belfer center for applied cancer science. The belfer center addresses key challenges in cancer treatments by leveraging dfci discoveries and applying them to drug discovery and development. The belfer center is focused on identifying strategies to overcome resistance to existing treatments. Using a collaborative research approach that brings together resources from academia and the biomedical industry, the belfer center is leading the way in translating today's science into tomorrow's targeted therapies more quickly than ever, bringing new hope to cancer patients.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 99% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 85% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • 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. 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: 60
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 19
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 66.2%; rating input score 66
  • Program expense ratio: 63.6%; rating input score 64
  • Fundraising efficiency: $4.83 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd 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: 8 of 8 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: 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: -3.7%; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.47; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.73; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 14%; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 13% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 11.8% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 11.3% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 66.2% of revenue deployed · 63.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 33 of 33 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $2.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $334K · 35 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 35 of 35 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2015 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 16/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 23/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 16/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 12/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 20/100.