United Cancer Research Society

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
237376161
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2012
Forms available
Form 990 2012
Location
Redlands, CA, USA
Phone
9098623710
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$206,740
Expenses
$260,996
Assets
$832,237
Liabilities
$259,003

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2012. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2012. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The Organization's mission is to refer those in need to cancer and treatment options and to promote other charitable purposes in areas benefiting mankind.

What it reported doing in 2012

Grants to other charitable organizations and organizations conducting cancer research and developing treatments.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 72% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
  • Transparency & Controls: 83
  • Accountability: 60
  • Sustainability: 30
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • Program expense ratio: Limited
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 79.5%; rating input score 80; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 66.7%; rating input score 67; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -26.2%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.19; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.31; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 26.1%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -33.8% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.6% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: 2 of 3 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $33K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $68K · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 21 of 22 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2011 to 2012
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 filed related-organization links
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.

Key Signals

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

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 10/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 14/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 23/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.
  • High — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization is not authorized to operate as a charity in California.