Ovarian Cancer Alliance of Greater Cincinnati

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
823862604
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Cincinnati, OH, USA
Phone
5135433558
Rating
84
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Health

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$314,684
Expenses
$327,801
Assets
$280,931
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

20 people listed

People named in this filing

  • DIANNE WEIDMANN (CO-CHAIR)
  • ANDY WALTER (CO-CHAIR)
  • SHELLEY HASTINGS-TOM (EDUCATION)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

To create public awareness about the signs and symptoms of ovarian cancer. To provide support, resources, and education to ovarian cancer survivors and caregivers. To fund research focused on early detection and a cure.

What it reported doing in 2024

Ocagc funded monthly support group meetings to promote wellness for cancer patients. In addition the group provided dozens of comfort baskets and mentor support to newly diagnosed women. The organization funded and participated in the inaugural woman to woman program through the cancer support community that pairs gynecologic cancer patients with trained survivor volunteers who provide one on one emotional support and mentoring to women. Hosted survivor socials where newly diagnosed patients interact with ovarian cancer survivors. Counseled newly diagnosed women with referrals to local agencies as needed, to include cancer support community, cancer family care, pink ribbon and nationally to ocra, specifically women to women.

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 97% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and revenue has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 98
  • Transparency & Controls: 84
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 43
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 99.2%; rating input score 99
  • Program expense ratio: 95.3%; rating input score 95
  • Fundraising efficiency: $1,567.71 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 92.7%; rating input score 93; 53rd 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: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -4.2%; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.86; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1.7% per year; rating input score 100; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -9% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.8% per year; rating input score 100; 37th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 99.2% of revenue deployed · 95.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 20 of 20 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $312K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 20 people listed
  • Consistency: 20 of 22 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2018 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
  • 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 31/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 37/100.
  • 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.