Friends of JCDS

Legal name: Friends of Jcds Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
481088092
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2023
Location
Lenexa, KS, US
Phone
913.826.2270
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Centers to Support the Independence of Specific Populations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,960,255
Expenses
$1,101,060
Assets
$8,328,223
Liabilities
$2,255,743

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

Leadership & pay

17 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CHAD VONAHNEN (BOARD PRESIDENT)
  • JANEL BOWERS (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)

Highest reported compensation

  • JANEL BOWERS (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER): $129,069 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Through our kinship with Johnson County Developmental Supports (JCDS), we provide basic needs, affordable housing, and life enhancing opportunities for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

What it reported doing in 2024

Indirect assistance is provided through a special assistance program to address basic need and socio-recreational activities for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities receiving direct services from johnson county developmental supports. No direct cash assistance is provided.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 95% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 50
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 78
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 29.5%; rating input score 29
  • Program expense ratio: 79.1%; rating input score 79
  • Fundraising efficiency: $26.69 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 23rd 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 8 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: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 62.8%; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 7.56; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.27; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 11.7%; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 12.6% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 16.6% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 17.1% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 3 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 29.5% of revenue deployed · 79.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 16 of 16 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $871K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $129K · 17 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 3 contractors listed · $957K reported
  • Consistency: 47 of 48 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2018 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 29/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 25/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 37/100.