Mark Staehely Pediatric Cancer Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
205240521
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Shorewood, IL, USA
Phone
8156304597
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Health

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$7,384
Expenses
$35,772
Assets
$35,961
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SUSAN STAEHELY (PRESIDENT)
  • BARB THOMPSON (1ST VICE PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • SUSAN STAEHELY (PRESIDENT)
  • BARB THOMPSON (1ST VICE PRESIDENT)
  • ROGER DAMYEN (TREASURER)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

To support pediatric cancer research. To improve and support the lives of children with pediatric cancer and their families. To enable individuals to pursue a degree in fire science through scholarship.

What it reported doing in 2024

Dr. John a. Kalapurakal, from northwestern memorial hospital, is one of the recipients of make your mark research grants. In partnership with the brain tumor foundation at northwestern memorial hospital, make your mark has provided the funding to start a new study of the relationship between nano-particles and radiation treatment. Preliminary studies have shown radiation to be more effective when these nano-particles has shown the effects of the radiation to be both more successful and longer lasting. This study can be viewed at http://janus.northwestern.edu/wololab/ along with other details from his ongoing neuroblastoma research and the work that is being done in conjunction with the lab of dr. Gayle woloschak at feinberg school of medicine at northwestern university.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 99% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

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: 90
  • Transparency & Controls: 84
  • Accountability: 48
  • Sustainability: 26
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 90.9%; rating input score 91
  • Fundraising efficiency: $3.86 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 72.7%; rating input score 73; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 14
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -384.5%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.01; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -15% per year; rating input score 0; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -16.7% per year; rating input score 0; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1.3% per year; rating input score 100; 48th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 90.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 11 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $32K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 13 of 14 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 6 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 34/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 9/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 24/100.