The Max Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
911893957
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Seattle, WA, USA
Phone
4257788660
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Public Health Program (Includes General Health and Wellness Promotion Services)

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$8,612,846
Expenses
$8,202,272
Assets
$3,388,502
Liabilities
$599,186

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

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • PATRICIA GARCIA-GONZALEZ (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)

Highest reported compensation

  • PATRICIA GARCIA-GONZALEZ (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER): $349,289 total reported compensation
  • JOHN MENAPACE (CFO & VP, ADMINISTRATION): $228,059 total reported compensation
  • BRYAN MURPHY (VP, PROGRAMS): $214,051 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

At the max foundation we believe that all people living with cancer should be able to access high impact medicines, that geography should not dictate one's destiny, and that everyone should be able to strive for health with dignity and hope. We are on a mission to accelerate health equity by delivering medication, technology, and services to patients facing cancer and other critical illnesses, focusing our energy on those no one else is helping.

What it reported doing in 2024

A key focus of the max foundation is expanding humanitarian access to innovative treatments for cancer and other critical illnesses in low-and middle-income countries. Donations of high impact products from drug manufacturers are received by our supporting organization, maxaid, and channeled to individual patients via our network of healthcare providers and cancer treatment centers. This access to medicines is enabled through our patient-centered treatment access model known as max access solutions. Our primary client is a patient who is treated by one of our partner physicians, diagnosed with a specific cancer or critical illness, and prescribed a medication for which the only available form of access is a humanitarian channel through max access solutions. We use a sophisticated web-engine platform developed in-house to allow us to work in real time with healthcare providers and create individualized program life cycles to meet each patient's needs. We further act as healthcare navigators for these patients, helping them walk through the access program environment. In order to optimize treatment, within our capabilities we provide crucial support that includes access to diagnostic testing, emotional and logistical support, informational resources and education, as well as advocating on their behalf when needed. We strengthen the communities around patients by supporting patient organizations and creating awareness initiatives in local and global communities.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 89% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 87% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 52
  • Transparency & Controls: 78
  • Accountability: 93
  • Sustainability: 34
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 57.2%; rating input score 57
  • Program expense ratio: 60.2%; rating input score 60
  • Fundraising efficiency: $1.24 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; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Pass
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Pass
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 93.7%; rating input score 94; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 87.5%; rating input score 88; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 4.8%; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.41; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.18; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 21.3%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0.9% per year; rating input score 100; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.9% per year; rating input score 100; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.3% per year; rating input score 100; 31st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 57.2% of revenue deployed · 60.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 8 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $4.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $349K · 16 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $292K reported
  • Consistency: 40 of 41 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 11 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, executive pay, and related organizations
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 10 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 3 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 57/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 3/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 6 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 14/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 50/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 11/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 47/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.