Super Sam Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
473080562
IRS 990 coverage
2023–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2022
Location
Fulton, MO, USA
Phone
6366998850
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Cancer

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$304,500
Expenses
$288,129
Assets
$180,688
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MATTHEW SANTHUFF (VICE PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • KELLY NICKELSON (DIRECTOR)
  • CHELSEY FLYNN (DIRECTOR)
  • EMILY TWILLMAN (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

A 501(c)3 pediatric cancer foundation with a mission focused on raising awareness, funding research, and supporting families in the fight. We are determined to fight for all the kids and provide comfort, support, awareness and research for pediatric cancer

What it reported doing in 2024

Attend pediatric cancer advocacy events and partner with other similar foundation in the nations capitol, curefest & advocacy days, to educate public and legislators on pediatric cancer treatment needs. Provide outreach and awareness to local community and surrounding area about child cancer and the desperate need for treatments targeted specifically to treat cancer in children. Attend forums with researchers and partner with similar foundations to discuss treatment needs and develop papers on possible actions to take towards developmen of treatments. Mentor youth to develop and utilize their voice to reach out and advocate the importance of the need to focus research on the development of treatment for pedicatric cancer, specifically rhabdomyosarcoma and diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma (dipg).

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 87% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 78% for direct work, and 22% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 52
  • Transparency & Controls: 85
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 50
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 54.2%; rating input score 54
  • Program expense ratio: 58.1%; rating input score 58
  • Fundraising efficiency: $5.39 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 84.6%; rating input score 85; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 80th 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • 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: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 5.4%; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.63; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.3% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 16.4% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 12.8% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 54.2% of revenue deployed · 58.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $167K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 12 people listed
  • Consistency: 26 of 28 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2023 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 54/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 58/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 24/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 51/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 29/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.