The Gala of Hope Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
464277044
IRS 990 coverage
2024–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-PF 2023
Location
Beavercreek, OH, USA
Phone
9372043620
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fund Raising and/or Fund Distribution

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,147,182
Expenses
$1,422,725
Assets
$1,829,344
Liabilities
$398,371

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CARLY COX (PRESIDENT)
  • TIFFANY KELLNER (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • MORGAN EDNIE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • MORGAN EDNIE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $159,688 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The gala of hope foundation is a nonprofit that raises funds and provides grants to advance cancer diagnosis and treatment, support patients and families, improve access to care, and fund local research and patient advocacy efforts.

What it reported doing in 2025

Provides direct financial assistance to cancer patients across a 14-county region to address basic needs during treatment, including housing, utilities, transportation, groceries, and other essential expenses. Payments were made directly to vendors based on referrals from healthcare partners. In 2025, provided $368,566 in assistance to 296 patients, supporting 587 household members. This included targeted support through special initiatives such as veteran assistance ($23,914; 150 individuals served) and holiday assistance for patients and families ($16,696; 30 patients and 95 family members served).

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 95% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 68% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 86
  • Transparency & Controls: 72
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 24
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 80.8%; rating input score 81
  • Fundraising efficiency: $9.39 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 99.1%; rating input score 99; 52nd 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: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: -24%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.29; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.22; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 11.2%; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 101% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -28.7% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.9% per year; rating input score 100; 44th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 80.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $1.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $160K · 11 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls 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: 2 filing years from 2024 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 13 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 4 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: Fundraising efficiency scored 33/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 5/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 51/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 24/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 34/100.