Huntsman Cancer Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
870541293
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Salt Lake City, UT, US
Phone
801-584-5800
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$51,876,352
Expenses
$49,965,188
Assets
$96,553,454
Liabilities
$21,901,449

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • PETER R HUNTSMAN (CHAIRMAN/DIRECTOR/CEO)
  • KIM WIRTHLIN (PRESIDENT/COO)
  • JILL PEARL (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • KIM WIRTHLIN (PRESIDENT/COO): $430,652 total reported compensation
  • JILL PEARL (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $206,768 total reported compensation
  • THOMAS EUGENE HANRATTY (DIRECTOR): $190,596 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Huntsman Cancer Foundation supports the mission of Huntsman Cancer Institute by raising philanthropic funds to fuel cancer research, patient care, and education.

What it reported doing in 2024

Activities to support the huntsman cancer institute which is a center for cancer research that has been formed within the health services center of the university of Utah, pursuant to a support agreement with the university.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 91% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 97% 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: 83
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 61
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 90.6%; rating input score 91
  • Program expense ratio: 85.3%; rating input score 85
  • Fundraising efficiency: $7.29 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 68th 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; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 66.7%; rating input score 67; 19th 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: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 3.7%; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.93; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.23; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0.2%; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 15.7% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.1% per year; rating input score 100; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -6.6% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 1 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 2 operating locations identified
  • Where the money goes: 90.6% of revenue deployed · 85.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 2 of 3 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $42.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $431K · 10 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $372K reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 29 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2014 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 33/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 51/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.