Choosing Kindness Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
862440901
IRS 990 coverage
2021–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Eugene, OR, USA
Phone
5416741050
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Service Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,108,599
Expenses
$1,430,862
Assets
$90,360
Liabilities
$50,412

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DOUG CARNINE (President)
  • LINDA CARNINE (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • DONNA DWIGGINS (Executive Dir.): $130,749 total reported compensation
  • CHRISTINE WLASCHIN (Secretary): $35,112 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To spread kindness and to increase the well-being and happiness of individuals, organizations, and communities by providing kindness grants and supporting this work in schools, workplaces, social services, and public safety. To support social justice, poverty alleviation, charitable assistance, environmental sustainablity, and projects that make a more kind, just, and compassionate world.

What it reported doing in 2025

EVIDENCE ADVOCACY CENTER: Revised 7 menus of research-based resources and continue to update them.Wrote and edited 6 new articles by Doug Carnine, Linda Diamond, or Danielle Diamond.Added new members, including new Executive Committee members.Initiated an Alliance of professional research-aligned education organizations.Advised and edited a Canon of Literacy still in development by Dr. Paige Pullen.Developed a weekly newsletter of relevant articles, research, and webinars.Participated in live virtual events and co-sponsored an important webinar about Berkeley USD in California.Doug Carnine wrote a substack paper and appeared in a Fordham webinar.Linda and 2 other EAC members developed a Wonkathon article for Fordham.Linda Diamond connected with the Education Endowment Foundation in the UK and the Australian Education Research Organisation in order to use their resources in EAC menus and their articles in the Research, Whitepapers and Articles (RWA) section of the EAC website.Developed a Model Education Policy Navigator tool for states, districts, higher education, and parent advocates.Updated the RWA section of the website with new articles and research.Worked with web designer on new Mailjet service for external news.Identified funders and met with at least 4.Provided science of learning modules to the National Council on Teacher Quality.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 98% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 69% for direct work, and 31% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 84
  • Transparency & Controls: 76
  • Accountability: 55
  • Sustainability: 8
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 86.4%; rating input score 86
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 69.5%; rating input score 69; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 66.7%; rating input score 67; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -29.1%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.06; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.56; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 11.6%; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.3% per year; rating input score 100; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -0.5% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -1.4% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 86.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 2 of 3 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 6 filed program accomplishments · $1.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $131K · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 26 of 28 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2021 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • 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: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 4/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 4/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 11/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 33/100.