Promise Fund of Florida Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
830535519
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
West Palm Beach, FL, USA
Phone
8774277664
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Cancer

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,189,322
Expenses
$3,454,470
Assets
$5,085,678
Liabilities
$907,768

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

Leadership & pay

25 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • NANCY G BRINKER (PRESIDENT)
  • TODD LAZENBY (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • KAREN PATTI (CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER): $201,843 total reported compensation
  • A ROBERT BLOOM (CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER): $188,434 total reported compensation
  • LISA T HARTSTEIN (DIRECTOR OF PROGRAMS): $188,161 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Promise fund's mission is to increase survivorship from breast and cervical cancer by providing guided support and access to screenings, as well as early detection, treatment, and beyond. Our model gives every woman the opportunity to attain health care, regardless of who she is, where she lives, or her level of income. That's our promise.

What it reported doing in 2024

The promise fund of Florida has developed a team of patient navigators who conduct outreach, education and facilitate access to early detection and screening for breast and cervical cancer. To overcome barriers to obtaining diagnostics and treatment for cancer, the promise fund has established a network of providers willing to offer pro-bono or reduced-cost treatment. Additionally, they have co-located promise fund women's health programs within federally qualified health center in palm beach and martin counties in Florida, that provides breast and cervical health screenings and diagnostic services, including mammography, ultrasound, pap testing, hpv testing, hpv vaccination, leep, and colposcopy, all aimed at enhancing equitable access to women's health services.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 76% for direct work, and 24% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 72
  • Transparency & Controls: 77
  • Accountability: 92
  • Sustainability: 56
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 69.9%; rating input score 70
  • Program expense ratio: 83.2%; rating input score 83
  • Fundraising efficiency: $14.43 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 23rd 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: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 99.2%; rating input score 99; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 94.7%; rating input score 95; 25th 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: 17.5%; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.47; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.18; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 29.5%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 37.4% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 15.1% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 22.7% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 69.9% of revenue deployed · 83.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 18 of 19 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $202K · 25 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 33 of 34 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2018 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 19 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 12 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: Fundraising efficiency scored 50/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 51/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 6/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 47/100.