Chicks for Charity

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
823469900
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2019–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2018
Location
Virginia Beach, VA, USA
Phone
7574697979
Rating
79
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Military, Veterans' Organizations

Reported finances

Revenue
$11,038
Expenses
$10,952
Assets
$6,733

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

People named in this filing

  • MICHAEL ATKINSON (DIRECTOR)
  • CORY BIESEL (DIRECTOR)
  • RICHARD S MILLER III (DIRECTOR)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

To provide support for military personnel and first responders and their families in hampton roads, Virginia who have suffered a loss or injury in performing their duties. To provide support through other exempt organizations that provide care for service animals. To provide support for educational programs as a means of stopping the cycle of poverty in families.

What it reported doing in 2025

Provide support for military personnel and first responders and their families in hampton roads, Virginia who have suffered a loss or injury in performing their duties and provide support for educational programs as a means of stopping the cycle of poverty in families.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Revenue has declined or grown slowly and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 84
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 39
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 83.5%; rating input score 84
  • Program expense ratio: 84.2%; rating input score 84

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 0.8%; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.61; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 8.2% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -3.3% per year; rating input score 0; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -7.9% per year; rating input score 0; 20th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 83.5% of revenue deployed · 84.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $9K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 7 of 7 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2019 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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.

  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 46/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 36/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.