Foundation for Living Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 861224127
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2022–2022
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2022
- Location
- Bolingbrook, IL, USA
- Phone
- 3124163977
- Rating
- 47
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Personal Social Services
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $2,066
- Expenses
- $1,030
- Assets
- $1,428
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2022. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
5 people listed
People named in this filing
- Antoinette Gentry-Calloway (Founder)
- Steven Calloway (Co-Founder)
- Khandice Blake (Member)
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 2022. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The Corporation is organized exclusively for charitable purposes as specified in Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, including for such purposes, the making of distributions to organizations that qualify as exempt organizations under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, or the corresponding section of any future federal tax code. The specific purposes of the Corporation are to provide assistance to underserved citizens in the Austin community located in Chicago, Illinois and the greater Chicagoland area. The assistance to be granted includes mentorship, financial literacy education, and scholarship.
What it reported doing in 2022
In December 2022, the organization was able to support a classroom of 35 students by providing supplies, goods, and funds for a holiday celebration. The foundation was able to sponsor a holiday party for a classroom of sixth graders in an underserved community in Chicago, Il.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 70% for direct work, and 30% for grants.
The verdict
MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue comfortably covers expenses. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 22
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 72
- Growth: NotEnoughData
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 15.9%; rating input score 16
- Program expense ratio: 31.9%; rating input score 32
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 50.1%; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.39; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: Limited
- Asset growth: Limited
Details
- Where the money goes: 15.9% of revenue deployed · 31.9% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $329 in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
- Consistency: 9 of 9 current checks pass
- Schedules: 2 filed schedules
- 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.
Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 16/100.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 32/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 52/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.