Race Cancer Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
271859289
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Cambridge, MA, USA
Phone
6177022020
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fund Raising and/or Fund Distribution

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$267,922
Expenses
$305,824
Assets
$24,384
Liabilities
$39,347

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • J Alain Ferry (President and Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • J Alain Ferry (President and Director): $10,000 total reported compensation
  • Bradley Mish (Accountant): $2,415 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

RACE Cancer Foundation fights cancer through action and prevention. Our running events promote health and wellness in the community, reducing the risk of cancer while raising funds and awareness for organizations dedicated to fighting cancer and impacted individuals. Our beneficiaries' programs create opportunities to reduce and detect cancer through education, prevention, and screening measures. RACE Cancer's Sunscreen Squad fights skin cancer by bringing free sunscreen dispensers to outdoor events across New England.

What it reported doing in 2025

RACE Cancer Foundation donated $4,000 directly to the Fishman family and $1,500 to the Matt Fishman Memorial Scholarship Fund. The scholarship funds are for a high school student who is pursuing music, either as a performer or composer, if they have been impacted by cancer or another medical hardship, either personally or through a family member. Additionally, RACE Cancer Foundation donated $1,443 to the Peter J Musto Memorial Scholarship. This scholarship seeks to honor the life of Peter J. Musto by supporting students from Pennsylvania who have been affected by cancer, either through their own diagnosis or the diagnosis of a family member

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 83% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 97% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 86
  • Transparency & Controls: 73
  • Accountability: 48
  • Sustainability: 13
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 97.8%; rating input score 98
  • Program expense ratio: 85.7%; rating input score 86
  • Fundraising efficiency: $6.73 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 57.2%; rating input score 57; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 50%; rating input score 50; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 44
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -14.1%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.08; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.61; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.1%; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 11.5% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.8% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -9.3% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 97.8% of revenue deployed · 85.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 2 of 4 board members independent · 4 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $262K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $10K · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 39 of 41 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2014 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • 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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 50/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 57/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 28/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 15/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 6/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 2/100.
  • 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.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 31/100.