Genesys Hurley Cancer Institute

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
383545312
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Flint, MI, USA
Phone
8107628226
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Health Treatment Facilities, Primarily Outpatient

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$8,828,652
Expenses
$8,798,330
Assets
$17,564,425
Liabilities
$2,183,527

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

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KIMBERLY VANSLYKE-SMITH (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • IBRAHIM ABDULHAY (PHYSICIST): $344,678 total reported compensation
  • ERIC KEDROSKY (DOSIMETRIST): $241,144 total reported compensation
  • LESLIE BOULAY (PHYSICIST): $193,704 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 highest quality of cancer care on patient clinical needs, research, quality of life and hope for the future.

What it reported doing in 2024

For the twelve months ended june 30, 2025, there were 861 patients seen at the genesys hurley cancer institute. There were approximately 10,232 treatments for the year, including 7,924 imrt and 2,308 non-imrt treatments. Additional patient services include 861 nutrition consults, 40 patients enrolled in research studies, over 310 patient and caregiver quality of life programs offered with over 3,000 attendees, and 3,181 rides were provided to over 750 patients.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 98% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 98% 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 the filed numbers largely add up. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 60
  • Transparency & Controls: 72
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 43
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 68.9%; rating input score 69
  • Program expense ratio: 65.5%; rating input score 66
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 51.7%; rating input score 52; 16th 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: 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: 0.3%; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.12; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 14.4%; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -1.1% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -0.8% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -2.4% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 68.9% of revenue deployed · 65.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $5.8M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $345K · 16 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $3M reported
  • Consistency: 28 of 29 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.

  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 52/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 35/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 20/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 54/100.