University of Kentucky Markey Cancer Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
310944925
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Lexington, KY, USA
Phone
8593236690
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$5,526,266
Expenses
$3,061,675
Assets
$23,116,118
Liabilities
$5,421,470

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Mike Harders (President and CEO)

People named in this filing

  • WM S Farish Jr (Trustee)
  • John Boardman (Trustee)
  • Charles Wethington JR PHD (Trustee)

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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Support for Markey Cancer Center Hospital building expansion and research projects.

What it reported doing in 2024

As the funding engine of the Markey Cancer Center, we lead the fight against cancer in the state of Kentucky. We connect supporters to a cause greater than themselves by matching their passion with the doctors, nurses and researchers who are working to cure cancer and thus change the course of humanity. Kentucky has the worst cancer rates in the union. And when cancer singles out our citizens for its worst, that is when Markey Cancer Foundation funds our most powerful weapons. Those weapons are groundbreaking research and clinical trials, prevention programs and, or course, cutting-edge patient care delivered with compassion, in a place that offers hope. Our generous donors support the dedicated staff of the Markey Cancer Center who come to this extraordinary place, on a daily basis - all with one goal - to lead Kentucky's fight against cancer

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 33
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 94
  • Sustainability: 84
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 33.6%; rating input score 34
  • Program expense ratio: 39%; rating input score 39
  • Fundraising efficiency: $2.25 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd 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: 6 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 86
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 44.6%; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 7.55; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.23; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.2% per year; rating input score 100; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.9% per year; rating input score 100; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.1% per year; rating input score 100; 35th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 33.6% of revenue deployed · 39% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 6 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 14 people listed
  • Consistency: 30 of 31 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 2 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 34/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 39/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 6/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Document-retention policy not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 40/100.