Oncology Nursing Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
251410081
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Phone
4128596100
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Cancer

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,426,421
Expenses
$2,331,744
Assets
$23,171,789
Liabilities
$260,623

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LAURA BENSON (PRESIDENT (EXIT 4/25))
  • RYAN IWAMOTO PRESIDENT-ELECT ((TILL 4/25), PRESIDENT (AT 4/25))
  • BRENDA NEVIDJON (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)
  • ANGIE STENGEL (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • ANNA POLYAK ENTER 1125 (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)

Highest reported compensation

  • BRENDA NEVIDJON (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER): $572,014 total reported compensation
  • JENNIFER FEEMAN (CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER): $298,864 total reported compensation
  • ANGIE STENGEL (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $259,975 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Onf's mission is to support cancer nursing excellence. We do this by awarding cancer nurses academic scholarships, professional development grants, research grants, and awards. See schedule o for continuationadditionally, the oncology nursing foundation offers professional development opportunities like a research-intensive program, resilience training, and an annual quality of life lectureship.

What it reported doing in 2025

Onf awarded 41 academic scholarships ranging from $3,000 to $7,500 in tuition assistance and related expenses to registered nurses pursuing a degeee in oncology nursing. These scholarships signficantly ease the financial budent that many students face, enabling them to focus on their studies and advance their careers without the overwhelmng stress of tuition costs. Additionally awards 102 conference scholarships for nurses to attend educational conferences.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 61% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 66% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 52
  • Transparency & Controls: 70
  • Accountability: 91
  • Sustainability: 81
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 54.8%; rating input score 55
  • Program expense ratio: 59.1%; rating input score 59
  • Fundraising efficiency: $5.22 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 16; 16th 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: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Pass
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Pass
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: 31.9%; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 9.94; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.2%; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.2% per year; rating input score 100; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.9% per year; rating input score 100; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3.6% per year; rating input score 100; 25th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 54.8% of revenue deployed · 59.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $572K · 14 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 37 of 37 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • Related organizations: 202 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 55/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 59/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 16/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 5 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.