The Ruth Cheatham Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
822633861
IRS 990 coverage
2019–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2018, Form 990-N 2017
Location
Dallas, TX, USA
Phone
9728973371
Rating
82
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Philanthropy, Charity, Voluntarism Promotion

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,750,946
Expenses
$1,346,340
Assets
$2,082,985
Liabilities
$11,480

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LINDSAY WHITTEMORE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR BOARD MEMBER)
  • ANGIE KELLER (BOARD PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • LINDSAY WHITTEMORE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR BOARD MEMBER)
  • DOUGLAS WHITTEMORE (BOARD TREASURER)
  • ANGIE KELLER (BOARD PRESIDENT)

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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Trcf provides a comprehensive set of essential support programs for teens and young adult cancer survivors: financial aid, through needs based college scholarships - educational support, through tutoring, career readiness, and peer mentoring- and advocacy.

What it reported doing in 2025

Advocacy: cancer advocates speak up for those that cant. Advocacy helps the cancer community navigate this often difficult landscape, and play a crucial role in creating a better future for all cancer patients. Trcf works to educate the community to raise support and awareness for adolescent cancer patients and survivors. Trcf advocacy efforts are focused on marketing to highlight prevention and early cancer diagnosis for teens. We also participate in a number of collaborative non-profit cohorts working to improve the cancer treatment and survivorship for teens and young adults. Trcf has a strong online forum where we address survivorship issues our scholars might face. Trcf typically spend 520 hrs/yr drafting the content and marketing for the advocacy efforts online, as well as 200 hrs a year on collaborative efforts with other cancer organizations supporting teen cancer survivors.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 98% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 77% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 80
  • Transparency & Controls: 85
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 69
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 72.7%; rating input score 73
  • Program expense ratio: 94%; rating input score 94
  • Fundraising efficiency: $50.38 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 75; 75th 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; 78th 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: 4 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 57
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 23.1%; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.55; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 43.1% per year; rating input score 100; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 34% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 32.2% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 72.7% of revenue deployed · 94% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 4 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 28 of 30 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2019 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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.
  • 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 6 not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 56/100.
  • 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.