Society on Sarcopenia Cachexia and Wasting Disorders Inc (Scwd)

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
800419218
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2019, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Duluth, GA, USA
Phone
6782315525
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Voluntary Health Associations & Medical Disciplines N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$373,013
Expenses
$421,953
Assets
$70,430
Liabilities
$4,200

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

Leadership & pay

25 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • STEFAN ANKER (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • STEFAN ANKER (PRESIDENT)
  • WILLIAM EVANS (FOUNDING DIRECTOR)
  • JOSEP M ARGILES (FOUNDING 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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Increased public awareness of sacropenia cachexia and wasting disorder througth the development of educational meetings.

What it reported doing in 2024

In 2024, scwd supported a pivotal study conducted in france on the prevalence of cancer cachexia, which was found to be significantly underestimated in medical records. The research, conducted at the rouen university hospital, used a clinical data warehouse to analyze both structured (icd codes) and unstructured (clinical narratives) data from 2018-2023. The study revealed that many cases of cancer cachexia were either not diagnosed or misclassified due to incomplete or inaccurate documentation, particularly in relation to weight loss data. Among patients with high-prevalence cachexia cancers like colorectal, pancreatic, and lung cancers, the prevalence was found to be 29.3%, much higher than the 3.66% identified by icd coding alone. The findings underscore the need for improved awareness and coding practices, as accurate diagnosis is essential for timely interventions and clinical trials

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 88
  • Transparency & Controls: 55
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 24
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 96.8%; rating input score 97
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Grant itemization coverage: Scored; rating input score 0
  • 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 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -13.1%; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.17; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.06; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 23% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.6% per year; rating input score 100; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.1% per year; rating input score 100; 48th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 96.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 23 of 23 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $409K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 25 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $217K reported
  • Consistency: 18 of 18 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 19/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 10/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 31/100.