Rivkin Center for Ovarian Cancer

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
912054035
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Seattle, WA, USA
Phone
2064900847
Rating
51
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Cancer Research

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,700,018
Expenses
$1,678,303
Assets
$1,970,548
Liabilities
$30,329

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MOLLY O'CONNOR (CEO)
  • MELISSA RIVKIN (PRESIDENT)
  • AMY SING (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • MOLLY O'CONNOR (CEO): $185,682 total reported compensation
  • PAULINE MIDDLEHURST (DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR (UNTIL 4/2024)): $35,061 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

We envision a world where women live longer and healthier lives because ovarian cancer can be prevented, caught early, or cured.

What it reported doing in 2024

The rivkin center's programmatic work underwent dynamic change in 2024, and even bigger changes are coming for 2025.for three decades, the rivkin center's scientific grant program has used a seed-funding approach that launches promising new research and researchers throughout the world. After pausing new grants in 2023, the rivkin center funded two $75k pilot study awards in 2024. The rivkin center and Washington state's andy hill cancer research endowment (care) fund also created a public-private partnership to jointly support $1m in ovarian cancer research in Washington state. In 2024, the first two grants totaling $400k were awarded; $600k in grants will be awarded in 2025. By the end of 2024, the rivkin center had raised its $500k in private matching funds. Ovarian cancer is underfunded by federal funding agencies when compared to other cancers, despite it still having no universal screening tool and being the deadliest gynecological cancer. For every dollar invested by the rivkin center, our awardees, on average, leverage another $17.30 from other funding sources to further their ovarian cancer research.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 84% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 55% for direct work, and 45% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 35
  • Transparency & Controls: 68
  • Accountability: 72
  • Sustainability: 44
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 38.6%; rating input score 39
  • Program expense ratio: 38.8%; rating input score 39
  • Fundraising efficiency: $2.1 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 22nd 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: 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 1.3%; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.17; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 13.2%; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -7.6% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -1.4% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -0.9% per year; rating input score 0; 15th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 38.6% of revenue deployed · 38.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 3 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $651K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $186K · 14 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 32 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 39/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 39/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 6/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 40/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 48/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 27/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.