Immunotherapy Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
473847309
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2020
Forms available
Form 990 2020
Location
San Diego, CA, USA
Phone
8583810823
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Cancer

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,650,667
Expenses
$1,533,551
Assets
$1,084,640
Liabilities
$532,160

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • FERNANDA L WHITWORTH (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Christina B Jordan (Executive Dir.): $160,000 total reported compensation
  • MARGAUX C STACK-BABICH (MANAGER): $46,332 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Immunotherapy Foundations (IF) initial mission is to find an effective treatment, and ultimately a cure for HPV-related cancers through the partnering and funding of research, studies and revolutionary treatments broadly known as immunotherapy. This research falls under the following three broad immunotherapy categories: adoptive cell therapies, immune response vaccines, and novel drugs.All projects will be designed to bring promising human therapies to the clinic. The projects will address the biology of HPV-related cancers, particularly those of the head and neck. The current research shows promise to extend to other malignancies. The projects are tightly interconnected to leverage information, allowing efficient movement into the clinic.

What it reported doing in 2020

Our cause is to fund the following programs and studies: A cutting-edge cancer mutanome focused personalized immunotherapy program.A novel immune therapy for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) that lays the framework for developing drugs, antibodies, and vaccines against cancers.Identification of a novel immune biomarker in the RNA sequence that allows us to predict and assess a patients response to immunotherapy.A robust clinical trial portfolio of immunotherapies for patients with HPV-related cancers, stressing studies with novel therapies, translational research, and biomarker discovery.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 85% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 81% 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. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 76
  • Transparency & Controls: 72
  • Accountability: 74
  • Sustainability: 34
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 78.9%; rating input score 79
  • Program expense ratio: 84.9%; rating input score 85
  • Fundraising efficiency: $10.84 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 74th 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: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 7.1%; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.71; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.49; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 13.5%; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 8.1% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 27% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -13.2% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 78.9% of revenue deployed · 84.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $160K · 5 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 26 of 27 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2016 to 2020
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 35/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 44/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 27/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 18/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 29/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.