Ohio Cancer Research Associates

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
311038309
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Columbus, OH, USA
Phone
6142241127
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Health

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$708,488
Expenses
$593,782
Assets
$714,153
Liabilities
$392,058

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • WILLIAM R BOGGESS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • DEBORAH PARRIS PHD (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • WILLIAM R BOGGESS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $174,725 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Ocr is dedicated to the cure and prevention of cancer by providing foundational seed money for new research ideas. Over 8 million in grants has generated over 1 billion from other sources based on project success

What it reported doing in 2025

Providing critical seed grants to support foundational, new ideas by cancer researchers that ultimately save, extend and improve lives. These grants, selected only on merit as determined by an independent scientific review committee, allow investigators to obtain data necessary to acquire much larger funding from sources such as the national institutes of health. 95% of our grant recipients receive additional funding. Over $8 million of grants awarded by Ohio cancer research(ocr) has now generated more than $1 billion in additional funding to cancer researchers. On average, each dollar ocr awards to a groundbreaking idea results in over $130 of additional funding from other sources.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 85% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 61% for direct work, and 39% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work 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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 69
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 48
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 69%; rating input score 69
  • Program expense ratio: 81.3%; rating input score 81
  • Fundraising efficiency: $10.09 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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; 78th 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 16.2%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.2; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.55; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 29.4%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -1.5% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -3.8% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 14.8% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 69% of revenue deployed · 81.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $483K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $175K · 8 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 31 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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: Fundraising efficiency scored 35/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 49/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 8/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 11/100.