The Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
752816066
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
8773636376
Rating
64
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fund Raising and/or Fund Distribution

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,531,496
Expenses
$1,542,060
Assets
$11,531,357
Liabilities
$457,681

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • BRIAN LEPACEK (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • BRIAN LEPACEK (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $153,217 total reported compensation
  • JULIE WHITE (PATIENT SRVS DIR): $138,975 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 offer hope and support to patients and families dealing with mesothelioma. This is accomplished by educating patients and families about the disease, helping them obtain the most up-to-date information on treatment options, connecting them with mesothelioma treatment specialists, and providing assistance, emotional support, and community with others. The foundation provides funding the highest quality and most promising mesothelioma research projects worldwide through rigorous peer-review. The foundation also works to raise awareness of the disease, and advocates that the public and private sectors partner in the effort to cure it by directing the resources needed to stop this global tragedy

What it reported doing in 2025

Education support and symposium patient support services offered by the mesothelioma applied research foundation, inc. Include personalized consultations and guidance through treatment with mesothelioma experts. This includes providing patients with information about treatment options, connecting them with mesothelioma treatment specialists when needed, and facilitating access to the foundations support groups.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 65% for direct work, and 35% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - Most voting board members are independent and revenue comfortably covers expenses. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 59
  • Transparency & Controls: 48
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 75
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 56.7%; rating input score 57
  • Program expense ratio: 75.9%; rating input score 76
  • Fundraising efficiency: $6.21 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 87.5%; rating input score 88; 2nd 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: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Limited
    • Requires narrative reports: Limited
    • Conducts field audits: Limited
    • May suspend future funding: Limited
    • Requires financial reports: Limited
    • Conducts site visits: Limited
    • Requires grant agreements: Limited
    • May require repayment: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 50%; rating input score 50; 20th 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: 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: 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: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 39.1%; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 7.48; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.04; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 18.9%; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -5.6% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.3% per year; rating input score 100; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 13.2% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 56.7% of revenue deployed · 75.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $153K · 12 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 34 of 36 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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 57/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 20/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 50/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 17/100.
  • 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.