Sickle Cell Disease Association of America Ft Worth
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 751384657
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2014–2014
- Forms available
- Form 990 2014
- Location
- Fort Worth, TX, USA
- Phone
- 8178820990
- Rating
- 82
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Birth Defects and Genetic Diseases
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $51,780
- Expenses
- $72,878
- Assets
- $25,498
- Liabilities
- $1,177
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
10 people listed
Highest reported compensation
- KATHLEEN HICKS (EXEC DIR): $50,000 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Promote finding a universal cure
What it reported doing in 2014
Provides educational programs, counseling, promotes public awareness and research for sickle cell disease patients & families
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 82% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 89
- Transparency & Controls: 100
- Accountability: 79
- Sustainability: 21
- Growth: NotEnoughData
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 80.5%; rating input score 81
- Fundraising efficiency: $15.14 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- 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: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -40.7%; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.35; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.05; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 68.6%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: Limited
- Asset growth: Limited
Details
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 80.5% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $59K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $50K · 10 people listed
- Consistency: 18 of 18 current checks pass
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
- 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.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 8 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 27/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 14/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 5/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 27/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.