Hitting Cancer Below the Belt Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
461581123
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2015
Location
Midlothian, VA, USA
Phone
8043340575
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Patient Services - Entertainment, Recreation

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$180,908
Expenses
$184,955
Assets
$322,868
Liabilities
$259,367

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Melinda M Conklin-Cassem MS MEd (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Melinda M Conklin-Cassem MS MEd (Executive Director): $51,900 total reported compensation
  • Renee Malone MPH (Program Director): $38,000 total reported compensation
  • Susan M Hebel CPA (RVA Fractional Accounting): $3,600 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To prevent and defeat colorectal cancer Activities: Colon health and prevention education; early detection.

What it reported doing in 2025

Colon Health Education and Support Services: HCB2 continues to provide education and resources to all ages through both in-person and virtual events in partnership with community groups, employers, and high school students. The 18 members of the Junior Board of high school students have reached over 25,000 peers, parents, and teachers through their on campus initiatives. Tens of thousands have been educated either directly or virtually through our Can We Talk? presentations and appearances with our popular and entertaining large inflatable colon and Potty Plinko game. Colorectal cancer is now the #1 cause of cancer-related death in people under age 50, and HCB2 believes providing various educational resources to engage even the younger community in a deeper level of conversation about colon health will move people from awareness to action and save lives.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 86% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 71
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 32
  • Sustainability: 32
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 79.7%; rating input score 80
  • Program expense ratio: 78.1%; rating input score 78
  • Fundraising efficiency: $1.68 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -2.2%; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.75; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.8; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 53.2%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 23.5% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 10.8% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 14% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 79.7% of revenue deployed · 78.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 10 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $144K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $52K · 15 people listed
  • Consistency: 20 of 21 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2016 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 7 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.

  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 8/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 30/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 56/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 3/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 5/100.