Gift from the Heart Fundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
363622298
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Schiller Park, IL, USA
Phone
8476712711
Rating
66
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
International Development

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$883,432
Expenses
$1,000,559
Assets
$1,491,755
Liabilities
$23,257

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

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DOROTHY MALACHOWSKI (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • IZABELLA RYBAK (DIR OF FINANCE): $67,496 total reported compensation
  • ANNA PIOTROWSKA (DIR OF ADMINSTR): $67,496 total reported compensation
  • JUSTYNA ZAWORSKI (BOOKKEEPING): $52,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To arrange medical services and bring ill and indigent children to the u.s. For treatment of serious illnesses or disabilities. 88 children where assisted during the year.

What it reported doing in 2024

To arrange medical services and bring needy and indigent children to the u.s. For treatment of serious illnesses and disabilities. 87 children where assisted during the year and we also provided after school services to 62 children with special needs, who live in chicago

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 81
  • Transparency & Controls: 38
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 32
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 90.4%; rating input score 90
  • Program expense ratio: 79.8%; rating input score 80
  • Fundraising efficiency: $9.59 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 76.9%; rating input score 77; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -13.3%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.49; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 24.2%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.7% per year; rating input score 100; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.6% per year; rating input score 100; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1.3% per year; rating input score 100; 23rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 90.4% of revenue deployed · 79.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $799K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $67K · 16 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 22 of 24 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2014 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 36/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 14/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 56/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D expense reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 10/100.