Sentinel Node Oncology Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
200173930
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2024, Form 990-N 2012
Location
Novato, CA, USA
Phone
4155060138
Rating
45
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Cancer

Reported finances

Revenue
$72,809
Expenses
$14,443
Assets
$243,118
Liabilities
$49

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Stanley P Leong (President & CEO)

People named in this filing

  • Stanley P Leong (President & CEO)
  • Shawn Young (Director)
  • PJ Ramtin (Director)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

Advance the care and treatment of patients with solid cancer, and develop new preventative strategies, diagnosis and treatments.

What it reported doing in 2025

In order for Sentinel Node Oncology Foundation (SNOF) to elevate to the next level in its mission, an agreement was made between Atrium Health Foundation and Sentinel Node Oncology Foundation whereby all assets would be transferred and housed in a separate fund managed by Atrium Health Levine Cancer leadership in year 2026. The fund would mirror the purpose of Sentinel Node Oncology Foundation of solely supporting a robust sentinel node databank. The fund would also manage contributions and registration fees for databank participants.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 79% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 71% for direct work, and 29% for grants.

The verdict

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue comfortably covers expenses. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 32
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 0
  • Sustainability: 78
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 35.7%; rating input score 36
  • Program expense ratio: 36.4%; rating input score 36
  • Fundraising efficiency: $0 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 0 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 80.2%; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 16.83; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -4.5% per year; rating input score 0; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -6.2% per year; rating input score 0; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1.8% per year; rating input score 100; 48th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 35.7% of revenue deployed · 36.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 9 board members independent · 0 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $5K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 17 of 17 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2013 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 36/100.
  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 36/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 4/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 30/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 58/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization is recorded as not currently operating in California.