Osteoporosis and Breast Cancer Research Center

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
330950811
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2020
Forms available
Form 990 2020
Location
Port Saint Lucie, FL, USA
Phone
7723454800
Rating
62
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Health

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,826
Expenses
$20,250
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • GEORGE B THORNTON (PRESIDENT/TRUSTEE)
  • RICHARD HOUGHTEN (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • PAMELA HOUGHTEN (SECRETARY/TRUSTEE): $12,691 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Osteoporosis and breast cancer research center (obcrc) is a nonprofit public benefit corporation and is not organized for the private gain of any person. Obcrc operates for the benefit of torrey pines institute for molecular studies, inc., by providing financial and scientific support for osteoporosis and breast cancer research, and by securing research collaborations with scientists worldwide in the field of osteoporosis and breast cancer.

What it reported doing in 2020

Scientists supported by obcrc conduct research, publish results and present findings to scientists at symposia throughout the world, lecture to small groups of students and scientists at seminars, and collaborate with other scientists. Additional program activities included the maintenance of a website with regularly updated information, and printing and distribution of various health conditions, signs to watch for and suggestions for optimal health. The center's goal for the upcoming year is to continue supporting scientists and students in the sciences that conduct research on health issues concerning women. The center expects to continue its activities to benefit the scientific research and outreach/education.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 48% for direct work, and 52% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 87
  • Transparency & Controls: 33
  • Accountability: 85
  • Sustainability: 3
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 94.4%; rating input score 94
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 84.6%; rating input score 85; 3rd 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: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Grant itemization coverage: 0%; rating input score 0; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Scored; rating input score 0

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: -1,009%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: Limited

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -21.3% per year; rating input score 0; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -5.6% per year; rating input score 0; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -3.4% per year; rating input score 0; 26th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 94.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 6 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $19K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $13K · 7 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 13 of 16 current checks pass · 3 findings to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes foreign activity, grants, executive pay, and related organizations
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2010 to 2020
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 4 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 5/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 2/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D expense reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D revenue reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.