M D Anderson Services Corporation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN: 760300816
IRS 990 coverage: 2009–2024
Forms available: Form 990 2024
Location: Houston, TX, USA
Phone: 7137459600
Rating: 41
Verdict: MIXED
Rating confidence: Moderate
Sector: Single Organization Support

Reported finances

Revenue: $49,611,351
Expenses: $4,293,290
Assets: $1,008,427,608
Liabilities: $111,182,013

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

CHRIS MCKEE (CHAIR & PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

OMER SULTAN (DIRECTOR): $1,403,924 total reported compensation
ALLYSON KINZEL (DIRECTOR/VICE CHAIR & SECRETARY): $1,213,936 total reported compensation
CHRIS MCKEE (CHAIR & PRESIDENT): $1,163,875 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

M. D. Anderson services corporation ("mdasc or the organization") serves as an instrument of the university of Texas m. D. Anderson cancer center ("mdacc") in its efforts to achieve its mission. Mdacc's mission is to eliminate cancer in Texas, the u.s., and the world through outstanding programs that integrate patient care, research, and prevention, and through education for undergraduate and graduate students, trainees, professionals, employees, and the public.

What it reported doing in 2024

Services: mdasc is a Texas nonprofit corporation that was organized in 1989 as a supporting organization to mdacc. Mdacc is one of the world's most respected institutions devoted exclusively to cancer patient care, research, education and prevention. Mdasc supports mdacc's mission by acting as an instrument through which mdacc delivers programs to achieve mdacc's mission. Mdasc's longest established extramural relationships are services agreements, pursuant to which mdasc provides a broad range of clinical support services (including mdacc's clinical guidelines, multi-disciplinary treatment planning methodologies, oncology quality management and best practices programs, physician education, and oncology consultations) to advance the treatment of cancer in community hospital or international settings. Pursuant to the services agreement for m. D. Anderson international espana in madrid, spain, mdasc supports spain's first multi-disciplinary full-service cancer center. The spain cancer center has provided a level of specialized oncology care that was previously unavailable in spain. Mdasc routinely assists mdacc in its development of various programs to implement mdacc's methodologies for the delivery of high-quality cancer care in community settings. Finally, mdasc provides management expertise to its related non-profit exempt organizations, m. D. Anderson physicians network and mdacc. Mdasc also holds and administers a permanent endowment valued in excess of $500 million exclusively for the benefit of mdacc.mdasc launched the caring fund in 2011 to assist mdacc employees and their families with recovery from disasters such as the 2011 Texas wildfires.the caring fund policy has been expanded to provide (a) financial assistance for specific qualifying financial hardships and (b) financial assistance to eligible applicants who are carrying out essential duties as required by md anderson cancer center during a public health emergency, such as covid19, for costs related to coming to work such as transportation, temporary housing, and childcare. Overall, the fund has aided more than 2,500 employees through the distribution of grants to eligible applicants.in fy25, the fund issued 593 grants to 593 recipients totaling $317,087.

Operating model

Revenue model: Investment-supported. 89% of the money available for current operations came from recurring investment income.
Distribution model: Multi-channel. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 21% for direct work, 57% for grants, and 22% for affiliated organizations.

The verdict

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

Financial Efficiency: 8
Transparency & Controls: 60
Accountability: 54
Sustainability: 85
Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

Mission deployment rate: 0.2%; rating input score 0
Program expense ratio: 25.2%; rating input score 25
Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd 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: Scored; rating input score 0
Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

Independent voting board: 28.6%; rating input score 29; 7th percentile among comparable filings
Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
- 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: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

Operating margin: 91.3%; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings
Total-asset coverage ratio: 234.88; rating input score 100; 100th percentile among comparable filings
Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.11; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
Officer compensation ratio: 43.1%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

Program expense growth: 3.4% per year; rating input score 100; 29th percentile among comparable filings
Revenue growth: 4.9% per year; rating input score 100; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
Asset growth: 3.9% per year; rating input score 100; 28th percentile among comparable filings

Details

Where the money goes: 0.2% of revenue deployed · 25.2% of spending went to programs
Governance: 2 of 7 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.1M in reported program spending
Leadership: top reported pay $1.4M · 14 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $674K reported
Consistency: 27 of 27 current checks pass
Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
Contacts: How to reach this organization
Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
Related organizations: 3 filed related-organization links
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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 25/100.
High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 29/100.
High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 1/100.