Childrens Development Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
263395104
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2012
Forms available
Form 990 2012
Location
Huntersville, NC, USA
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Youth Development Programs

Reported finances

Revenue
$202,003
Expenses
$263,253
Assets
$57,103
Liabilities
$118,845

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

Leadership & pay

1 person listed

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

Overview

Mission

Aiding Needy Children

What it reported doing in 2012

Clothing is contributed to the Children? s Development Foundation, Inc. by individuals depositing the clothing in containers. The contributions are collected from the containers, sorted and bundled for processing. Children? s Development Foundation, Inc. receives fees for delivering the bundled clothing for processing.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

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: 62
  • Accountability: 5
  • Sustainability: 14
  • Growth: 0

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: 0%; rating input score 0; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -30.3%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.22; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 2.08; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 1.7%; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -6.9% per year; rating input score 0; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -20% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: 0 of 1 board members independent · 1 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $263K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $9K · 1 people listed
  • Consistency: 23 of 24 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2011 to 2012
  • 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.

  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 9/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 13/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 2/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 47/100.