National Pancreas Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
232935929
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Bethesda, MD, USA
Phone
8667262737
Rating
81
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Diseases of Specific Organ Research

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,385,003
Expenses
$1,812,108
Assets
$498,895
Liabilities
$412,763

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

Leadership & pay

34 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JENNY PAGEL-GUILE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • JENNY PAGEL-GUILE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $174,384 total reported compensation
  • BARBARA NOWAKOWSKI (DIRECTOR OF FINANCE OPERATIONS): $121,483 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The national pancreas foundation provides hope for those suffering from pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer through funding cutting edge research, advocating for new and better therapies, and providing support and education for patients, caregivers, and healthcare professionals.

What it reported doing in 2024

Educational programs including a symposium for renowned specialists to educate on cutting edge research and share insight into pancreatic cancer and acute pancreatitis, an animated module to provide visual formats of learning for patients to improve their understanding of the disease, make informed decisions, and partner with their health-care professionals for optimal outcomes, patient-focused drug development process, and a national patient registry that serves as valuable resource to understand effectiveness of treatments, and quality of life of patients affected by pancreatic conditions.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 94% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

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: 88
  • Transparency & Controls: 68
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 10
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 81.9%; rating input score 82
  • Fundraising efficiency: $11.29 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 87.5%; rating input score 88; 3rd 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: 90.3%; rating input score 90; 38th 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: 9 of 9 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: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -30.8%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.28; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.83; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 16.3%; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.1% per year; rating input score 100; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6% per year; rating input score 100; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 0.2% per year; rating input score 100; 18th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 81.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 32 of 32 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $174K · 34 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 28 of 30 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 42/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 6/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 13/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 8/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 20/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.