Speed of Light - the Astro Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
510178702
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Arlington, VA, USA
Phone
7038397312
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Cancer

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$914,017
Expenses
$1,419,116
Assets
$19,942,267
Liabilities
$240,440

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

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • GITA SUNEJA (PRESIDENT)
  • JASON A EFSTATHIOU (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • COLLEEN A F LAWTON (IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • VIVEK S KAVADI (EXEC DIR, SECR, AND ASST TREAS): $665,075 total reported compensation
  • LAURA I THEVENOT FORMER EXEC (DIR, SECR, AND ASST TREAS): $229,966 total reported compensation
  • HOWARD SANDLER (ASTRO REPRESENTATION AS OF 09/25): $2,500 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 bring the vision to reality, the foundation will accelerate bold and innovative ideas in radiation therapy.

What it reported doing in 2025

The ro toolbox is a resource for health care professionals that is designed to support evidence-based practice. This point-of-care tool compiles frequently accessed references related to the delivery of radiation therapy, including dose constraints, calculators, toxicity scales, and clinical practice guidelines. Del regato program supports webinars for residents through a partnership with the association of residents in radiation oncology (arro) and the american society for radiation oncology (astro). The live webinars are free of charge for residents and offer a unique opportunity to connect with faculty leaders in the field of radiation oncology.

Operating model

Revenue model
Investment-supported. 67% of the money available for current operations came from recurring investment income.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 62% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 64
  • Transparency & Controls: 69
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 41
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 92.3%; rating input score 92
  • Program expense ratio: 39%; rating input score 39
  • Fundraising efficiency: $0.81 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 26th 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: 98.7%; rating input score 99; 51st 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: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -55.3%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 14.05; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.6%; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4.6% per year; rating input score 100; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -4.6% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.5% per year; rating input score 100; 33rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 92.3% of revenue deployed · 39% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $554K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $665K · 16 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $118K reported
  • Consistency: 30 of 31 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2012 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 9 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 10 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: Program expense ratio scored 39/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 3/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 2/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 51/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 58/100.