Give Like a Mother
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 823666599
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2019–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2018, Form 990-N 2017
- Location
- Cincinnati, OH, USA
- Phone
- 5137310130
- Rating
- 85
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Support N.E.C.
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,535,208
- Expenses
- $1,363,133
- Assets
- $808,330
- Liabilities
- $6,842
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
11 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- JILL HUYNH (PRES/CEO (MAY-DEC))
Highest reported compensation
- JILL HUYNH (PRES/CEO (MAY-DEC)): $121,738 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Our mission is to ensure that children in our community have appropriate clothing needed to provide safety, comfort, and higher self-worth.
What it reported doing in 2025
Give like a mother (glam), established in 2018, focuses on addressing clothing insecurity for children in the cincinnati region. In 2025, glam distributed 4,451 clothing packs (personalized, age-appropriate, confidence-boosting kits) to children and teens living primarily in brown and clermont counties. Although we served children residing within the cincinnati region prior to 2025, the launch of our 3-year strategic plan on january 1, 2025 allowed for a geographical focus on brown and clermont county residents. Glam receives clothing donations from the community with most of these items being utilized in clothing packs. Glam also receives monetary donations used to purchase new socks, new underwear, and any supplemental clothing items needed to complete clothing pack requests. Families can connect to glam services through our website, in person, or via phone. Once clothing packs are made and ready for distribution, families are notified to either pick up the items from our facilty or they can request delivery support if transportation is a barrier.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 78% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 75% of its reported program spending out as grants.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 81
- Transparency & Controls: 90
- Accountability: 90
- Sustainability: 48
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 79.6%; rating input score 80
- Program expense ratio: 89.6%; rating input score 90
- Fundraising efficiency: $22.41 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 24th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 78th 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
- 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: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 11.2%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.59; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 8.9%; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 23.5% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 21.8% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 17.6% per year; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 79.6% of revenue deployed · 89.6% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.2M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $122K · 11 people listed
- Consistency: 29 of 30 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
- Filing history: 6 filing years from 2019 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 4 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.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 59/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 29/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 58/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 40/100.