Frances Pope Memorial Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
133605053
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
New York, NY, USA
Phone
8666350853
Rating
62
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$137,826
Expenses
$116,675
Assets
$211,992
Liabilities
$35,775

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ROBERT A POPE (EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT)
  • ELLEN PREIMESBERGER (PRESIDENT)
  • MARY O'DOWD (FORMER PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • MARY O'DOWD (FORMER PRESIDENT): $19,231 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Provide financial assistance, not covered by insurance, to families of children with cancer.the purpose of the foundation is to offer hope, aid and support, as to not impoverish families of children suffering from life threatening cancers, by providing financial assistance for the payment of hidden costs, not covered by funds or insurances available through the private or public domain. These costs can include, but are not limited to: child care expenses for siblings while parents attend to medical appointments with the ill child; transportation to and from medical facilities, accomodations, if child is being treated out of home town; funeral arrangements. In addition, to assist children with life-threatening cancers to adjust to school settings and the dynamics of the family and generally to endeavor to ameliorate the suffering and to improve, advance and enrich the lives of such children.

What it reported doing in 2024

The foundation has provided travel, accommodations and living expenses for families receiving medical care when away from home while simultaneously paying rents, mortgage, car payments and childcare expenses. The foundation has disbursed $38,767 to approximately 23 families caring for children with cancer to help pay expenses not covered by insurance.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 42% for direct work, and 58% for 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 few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 52
  • Transparency & Controls: 68
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 54
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 48.3%; rating input score 48
  • Program expense ratio: 57%; rating input score 57
  • Fundraising efficiency: $17.91 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 15.3%; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.82; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.17; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 16.5%; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -7.4% per year; rating input score 0; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -3.2% per year; rating input score 0; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -1.5% per year; rating input score 0; 19th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 48.3% of revenue deployed · 57% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $67K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $19K · 15 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 26 of 26 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 48/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 57/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 55/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 57/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 21/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 23/100.