Neuroendocrine Tumor Research Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
201945347
IRS 990 coverage
2019–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Quincy, MA, USA
Phone
6179461780
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fund Raising and/or Fund Distribution

Reported finances

Revenue
$8,684,021
Expenses
$4,788,567
Assets
$27,566,655
Liabilities
$5,093,388

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

Leadership & pay

17 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JULIE SHAFFER MEBANE (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • TODD GILMAN (PRESIDENT)
  • ELYSE GELLERMAN (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)

Highest reported compensation

  • ELYSE GELLERMAN (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER): $212,863 total reported compensation
  • SUSAN HARRINGTON (CHIEF DEVELOPMENT OFFICER): $200,245 total reported compensation
  • JESSICA THOMAS (DIRECTOR OF PATIENT EDUCATION): $156,812 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To fund research to discover cures and more effective treatments for neuroendocrine cancers. The netrf is committed to improving the lives of those affected by neuroendocrine cancer by providing information & educational resources.

What it reported doing in 2025

Netrf conducts outreach to other net-related organizations in the united states and beyond to convene researchers and facilitate scientific collaboration. Through its work and leadership with these other groups, netrf advances understanding of neuroendocrine tumors and the needs of net patients. Netrf also works with patient support groups to connect to the larger net community.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 93% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 76% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of total spending goes to programs and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 61
  • Transparency & Controls: 70
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 73
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 50.3%; rating input score 50
  • Program expense ratio: 82.6%; rating input score 83
  • Fundraising efficiency: $14.15 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Pass
    • Conducts field audits: Limited
    • May suspend future funding: Limited
    • Requires financial reports: Pass
    • Conducts site visits: Limited
    • Requires grant agreements: Limited
    • May require repayment: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 95.4%; rating input score 95; 36th 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 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: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 44.9%; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.76; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.18; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 15.1%; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -7% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.7% per year; rating input score 100; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 0.8% per year; rating input score 100; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 50.3% of revenue deployed · 82.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $213K · 17 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 35 of 37 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2019 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 14 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 10 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 50/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 48/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 22/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 37/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.