Community Action Agency of Greater Kc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 431197168
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Kansas City, MO, USA
- Phone
- 8163586868
- Rating
- 77
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Emergency Assistance
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $8,169,858
- Expenses
- $8,183,072
- Assets
- $3,232,847
- Liabilities
- $808,380
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
16 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- DR ZAVON KANION (PRESIDENT)
- MARK LINDSAY (1ST PRESIDENT)
- JOSEPH THOMAS (2ND VICE PRESIDENT)
- CLIFTON CAMPBELL (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR/CEO)
Highest reported compensation
- CLIFTON CAMPBELL (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR/CEO): $251,051 total reported compensation
- MICHELLE JOHNSON (CFO/FISCAL DIRECTOR): $137,725 total reported compensation
- PATRICIA CANADY (ACCOUNTANT): $117,683 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Community action agency of greater Kansas city (caagkc) provides low-income residents of clay, jackson, and platte counties in Missouri comprehensive supportive services that help them become self-sufficient.
What it reported doing in 2024
Community services block grant (csbg): over 69,964 households/209,820 individuals have been served through csbg funding. The programs caagkc was able to implement include the healthy homes program; family coaching and case management; the pave the way (projects, assets, values, and education) after-school program; the food and toiletry pantry program; emergency services; transportation assistance; rental assistance; poverty simulations; the community baby shower; freedom school; and the community garden program.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Grant-funded. 85% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 42% for direct work, and 58% for grants.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Program spending has declined or grown slowly and revenue has declined or grown slowly.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 82
- Transparency & Controls: 75
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 28
- Growth: 0
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 92.6%; rating input score 93
- Program expense ratio: 92.5%; rating input score 92
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -0.2%; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.4; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.25; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 7.6%; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -1.9% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -1% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -1% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 92.6% of revenue deployed · 92.5% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $7.6M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $251K · 16 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 4 contractors listed · $1.8M reported
- Consistency: 35 of 35 current checks pass
- Schedules: 7 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: 4 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
- 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: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 32/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 13/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 39/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 39/100.