Lazarex Cancer Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
202562494
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Danville, CA, USA
Rating
85
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Educational Services and Schools - Other

Reported finances

Revenue
$865,301
Expenses
$2,048,874
Assets
$689,766
Liabilities
$80,809

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Kenny J Simansky (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Marya Shegog (Health & Prog Dir): $118,855 total reported compensation
  • Erin Miller (Director- Ops/Dev): $118,100 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

We strive to improve cancer health outcomes, FDA cancer clinical trial diversity and enrollment, and patient access to care by providing assistance with clinical trial navigation, reimbursing trial related travel costs, and partnering with at-risk communities to mobilize resources.

What it reported doing in 2025

Lazarex Cancer Wellness Hub Program: Lazarex Cancer Wellness Hubs operated in Philadelphia through Drexel University and Penn Abramson, in Los Angeles through USC Norris, and in the San Francisco East Bay area in collaboration with Monument Crisis Center. The goal of the Lazarex Cancer Wellness Hub Program is to generate a replicable program that is place based, culturally appropriate, and community driven, that operates in at-risk communities of color across the continuum of cancer care to improve cancer health disparities and improve cancer health outcomes.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 88% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 61% for direct work, and 39% for grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 80
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 94
  • Sustainability: 13
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 71%; rating input score 71
  • Fundraising efficiency: $2.87 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 78th 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 86
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -136.8%; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.34; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.12; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 11.6%; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.5% per year; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.6% per year; rating input score 100; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.2% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 71% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 6 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $1.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $119K · 13 people listed
  • Consistency: 30 of 30 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2012 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 8 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.

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

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 8/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 17/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 33/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 33/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization is recorded as not currently operating in California.