Ut Southwestern Moncrief Cancer Center Moncrief Cancer Institute

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
752655008
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Fort Worth, TX, USA
Phone
8172889800
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Health

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$14,176,226
Expenses
$15,582,150
Assets
$36,351,895
Liabilities
$7,478,951

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DANIEL PODOLSKY MD (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • DANIEL PODOLSKY MD (PRESIDENT): $3,215,251 total reported compensation
  • HOLLY CRAWFORD (EVP BUSINESS AFFAIRS): $1,045,249 total reported compensation
  • CARLOS ARTEAGA (PROFESSOR AND DIRECTOR): $1,012,640 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To be a leader in our community's efforts to fight cancer and reduce its burden throughout the continuum of care setting, using education, awareness, prevention, early detection, behavioral and nutritional sciences and research.

What it reported doing in 2024

Originally a radiation therapy center, moncrief cancer institute has evolved into a provider of services designed to reduce the burden of cancer and remove barriers to care through prevention, survivorship, and research. These services include public education, prevention/early detection, genetic screening and counseling, financial advocacy, multidisciplinary survivorship services, and population research. As a result, moncrief cancer institute provides free cancer screening services to those who otherwise wouldn't have access. Moncrief detects cancers at earlier, more treatable stages, helps patients obtain access to treatment, and AIDS cancer survivors in resuming active lifestyles. Delivering care in more than 100 north, east, and central Texas counties, at a physical fort worth location, within partner clinics, and aboard two mobile screening clinics, moncrief cancer institute's implementation of these services supports its continued mission of easing the burden of cancer throughout the continuum of care.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 99% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 90
  • Transparency & Controls: 66
  • Accountability: 52
  • Sustainability: 40
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 94.4%; rating input score 94
  • Program expense ratio: 85.8%; rating input score 86
  • Fundraising efficiency: $116.68 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 10th 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: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 85.1%; rating input score 85; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 33.3%; rating input score 33; 7th 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: -9.9%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.33; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.21; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.1%; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5% per year; rating input score 100; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.7% per year; rating input score 100; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -6.6% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 94.4% of revenue deployed · 85.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 1 of 3 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 7 filed program accomplishments · $13.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $3.2M · 8 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $2.3M reported
  • Consistency: 28 of 29 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 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.

Key Signals

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

  • Moderate — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 33/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 10/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 58/100.