National Cancer Center Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
131919715
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
West Islip, NY, USA
Phone
6313144774
Rating
66
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Health

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,605,404
Expenses
$4,861,465
Assets
$1,935,351
Liabilities
$1,359,882

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Michelle Stack (CEO)
  • Kris DiSanti (Executive Director)
  • Raymond L Forsythe (Vice President)
  • Barry J Peek (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Michelle Stack (CEO): $165,000 total reported compensation
  • Regina English (Consultant): $138,000 total reported compensation
  • Kris DiSanti (Executive Director): $110,440 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

National cancer center (ncc) founded by dr. Ernest ayre in 1953 as a non-profit organization committed to ovarian cancer research and education. Ncc has expanded its mission to support several types of cancer research and education to include: breast cancer research childrens cancer research childhood leukemia research aggressive cancer research prostate cancer research

What it reported doing in 2024

The grants program awards funding to institutions and individuals for cancer research. National cancer center (ncc)has established funding for a number of post-doctoral fellowships for qualified applicants to basic research in molecular genetics and the cellular aspects of cancer biology and tumor immunology. Research grants are also available for post-doctoral fellowships in childrens cancer research, including fighting childrens leukemia. Research grants are monitored by the scientific advisory board and nccs management

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 96% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 65% for direct work, and 35% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - Most voting board members are independent 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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 51
  • Transparency & Controls: 66
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 11
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 63.7%; rating input score 64
  • Program expense ratio: 46.4%; rating input score 46
  • Fundraising efficiency: $1.66 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 86.7%; rating input score 87; 2nd 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; 72nd 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: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -34.8%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.4; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.7; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 8.5%; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 10.6% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.7% per year; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.2% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 63.7% of revenue deployed · 46.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $2.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $165K · 8 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 25 of 25 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2013 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 11 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 8 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 46/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 4/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 3/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 13/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 13/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 35/100.