San Francisco Womens Cancer Network

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
900709518
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2018
Location
San Francisco, CA, USA
Phone
4158399323
Rating
65
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Health

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$208,886
Expenses
$224,003
Assets
$50,171
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • OLIVIA FE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • ROBIN LEE (PRESIDENT)
  • CECILIA THOMAS (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • OLIVIA FE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $96,462 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To ensure full access to timely, appropriate cancer care for low-income, medically, and socially underserved women with cancer.our vision: to protect and sustain high quality, comprehensive cancer care for all women receiving treatment and services within the safety net.

What it reported doing in 2025

San francisco womens cancer network supports four cancer support groups targeting the following populations of women. All provide psychosocial support programs for cancer patients and survivors. Participation in cancer support groups mitigates the overwhelming barriers that underserved women face when confronted with cancer diagnosis. African american filipino latina chinese san francisco womens cancer network supports patient navigation services targeting the following populations of women. Patient navigation services help bridge these gaps by providing culturally and linguistically appropriate guidance across the cancer care continuum from education and screening to diagnosis, treatment, and survivorship. Navigators build trust, reduce fear and confusion, and ensure individuals can access and complete necessary care.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 73% for direct work, and 27% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 53
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Accountability: 63
  • Sustainability: 24
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 61.4%; rating input score 61
  • Program expense ratio: 57.1%; rating input score 57
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 81st 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: -7.2%; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.22; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 43.1%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -7.1% per year; rating input score 0; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -0.5% per year; rating input score 0; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -14.9% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 61.4% of revenue deployed · 57.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 1 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $128K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $96K · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 21 of 21 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2020 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 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.

  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 7 not reported.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 57/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 22/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 13/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 5/100.