Race to Erase Ms

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
841238541
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Los Angeles, CA, USA
Phone
3104404842
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,286,955
Expenses
$1,663,749
Assets
$2,305,612
Liabilities
$962,271

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • NANCY DAVIS (PRESIDENT/CH)

Highest reported compensation

  • NANCY DAVIS (PRESIDENT/CH): $277,952 total reported compensation
  • ELIZABETH SEARES (COO): $208,020 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To provide funding for research and to promote awareness for the treatment and ultimate cure of multiple sclerosis.

What it reported doing in 2024

Funding research is the core focus of the foundation and all funds raised support our center without walls program, a selected network of the nations top ms research centers. This nationwide collaboration of physicians and scientists are on the cutting-edge of innovative research programs, working as a team on therapeutic approaches to eradicate ms. In addition to combating ms through research in a clinical environment, we hope to increase awareness by educating the public about this mystifying disease the race to erase ms center without walls ("cww") program has provided support that has has permitted the medical community to link together multidisciplinary scientific programs and expertise across the country to advance the understanding of the cause of ms and to develop new treatments. The center is a break-through success because of the vision, insight and flexibility of these extraordinary doctors. The center constantly strives to strengthen this revolutionary concept with new approaches to finding the brightest minds in this field. The center's scientific advisory board, spearheaded by dr. Andrew goodman, reviews proposals and grants, submitted in standard nih format. In addition to the regular use of high-technology communication tools, researchers of cww come together to share scientific accomplishments through monthly virtual meetings, standard scientific advisory meetings and collaborative symposiums.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 91% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 69% for direct work, and 31% 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 expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 75
  • Transparency & Controls: 75
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 21
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 90.1%; rating input score 90
  • Program expense ratio: 68.9%; rating input score 69
  • Fundraising efficiency: $4.44 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 84.6%; rating input score 85; 20th 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: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -29.3%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.39; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.42; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 29.2%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -2.1% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -3.7% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -9.1% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 90.1% of revenue deployed · 68.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 13 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $278K · 14 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 34 of 34 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2014 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 7 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 5 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 15/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 6/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 53/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 7/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 19/100.