Community Linc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
431506591
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Kansas City, MO, USA
Phone
8165955554
Rating
91
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Homeless Shelters

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,733,136
Expenses
$3,165,929
Assets
$4,601,838
Liabilities
$79,831

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

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MICHAEL WILSON (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • MICHAEL WILSON (CEO): $134,264 total reported compensation
  • HANNAH GLENN (DIRECTOR OF FINANCE): $53,847 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 linc provides rapid rehousing programs for homeless families in Kansas city, Missouri. (continued on schedule o)other activities include training and education regarding budgeting, life skill training for both adults and children, short- and long-term goal planning, and healthy lifestyles, as well as counseling and therapy for both children and adults due to homelessness.

What it reported doing in 2024

Community housing access (cha) is designed for low barrier households at risk of homelessness due to health issues, decreasing wages, or loss of income. Households are given financial assistance and short-term case management to become stabilized to prevent homelessness. Additionally, cha assists households who are living unsheltered and in need of intervention to transition them from residing at places not meant for human or long-term habitation such as garages, parks, cars, hotels, and shelters. Services include short-term case management, connection to community resources, and financial assistance to stabilize unsheltered households and remove barriers to place them into housing programs or permanent housing through partnerships with housing providers.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 68% for direct work, and 32% for grants.

The verdict

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

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 92
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 34
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 99.5%; rating input score 99
  • Program expense ratio: 86.6%; rating input score 87
  • Fundraising efficiency: $38.27 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • 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: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • 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: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -15.8%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.45; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.9%; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6.6% per year; rating input score 100; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.6% per year; rating input score 100; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.2% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 99.5% of revenue deployed · 86.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $2.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $134K · 16 people listed
  • Consistency: 39 of 39 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 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.

  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 9/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Audit committee oversight not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 51/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 47/100.