Urology Care Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
203210212
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-T 2025
Location
Linthicum Hts, MD, USA
Phone
4106893700
Rating
61
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fund Raising and/or Fund Distribution

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$9,577,107
Expenses
$3,639,613
Assets
$96,329,318
Liabilities
$1,747,709

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

Leadership & pay

22 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • HARRIS NAGLER MD (PRESIDENT)
  • MICHAEL T SHEPPARD (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • RAYMOND WEZIK (VP & DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • MICHAEL T SHEPPARD (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $963,431 total reported compensation
  • PATRICIA HOPE (EVP, CHIEF MARKETING & DEVELOPMENT): $515,143 total reported compensation
  • BARBARA B HARTFORD (EVP FINANCE, CFO): $408,706 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

We support, through philanthropic efforts, the improvement of urological care globally by funding research, clinical education, patient education, and humanitarian programs.

What it reported doing in 2025

Patient education, outreach, and advocacy: the urology care foundation is a trusted resource for urologic patient education and advocacy. Using information that is medically approved and based on the clinical guidelines set by the american urological association, our foundation develops all patient education materials with leading medical experts in urology treatment and care. We have more than 800 educational materials for patients, caregivers, and the public, all available for free on our website at www.urologyhealth.org. During 2025, foundation's education and awareness campaigns reached over 1.9 million impressions, empowering patients and their loved ones with critically needed information and resources to help them understand and navigate their urological health and care. Through our social media platforms (facebook, instagram, x and linkedin) the foundation continued to connect people globally and allowed us to reach more than 9.4 million people through our growing followers, impressions, engagements and ads. Our community outreach and collaborative efforts are strengthened through three formalized patient alliances-the prostate cancer impact alliance, kidney cancer impact alliance, and bladder health alliance, which collectively represent over one hundred patient groups and medical professionals. These alliances actively engage in community outreach, provide patient education, and coordinate collaborative projects to advance awareness and improve care for individuals affected by urologic conditions. Alliance activities during 2025, included in-person roundtable meetings in support of increased research funding and other vital issues for improving urologic care and treatment.

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 51% for direct work, and 49% for grants.
  • 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 few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 52
  • Transparency & Controls: 62
  • Accountability: 81
  • Sustainability: 82
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 43%; rating input score 43
  • Program expense ratio: 74%; rating input score 74
  • Fundraising efficiency: $9.08 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.4%; rating input score 94; 25th 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: 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: Pass
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 99.1%; rating input score 99; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 62%; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 26.47; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 40%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -1.6% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -0.7% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.3% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 43% of revenue deployed · 74% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 12 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $2.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $963K · 22 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 35 of 36 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 11 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: 42 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 33 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.

Key Signals

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

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 43/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 6 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 32/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 3/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.