Giving It Back to Kids Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
431955650
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Huntington Beach, CA, USA
Phone
7145939200
Rating
64
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Christianity
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,725,959
Expenses
$1,723,972
Assets
$778,413
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ROBERT V KALATSCHAN (President)
  • TAM TONG (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • ROBERT V KALATSCHAN (President): $105,000 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Giving it back to kids is a non-profit organization helping the families and children of vietnam and cambodia by providing medical care, medical equipment, housing, nutrition, and education.

What it reported doing in 2025

Giving it back to kids conducts three medical related missions. 1)the water filter mission receives donations of water filters and related equipment from united states donors and distributes the water filters to individuals in vietnam and cambodia who do not have clean and safe drinking water. 2)the heart and medical mission provides funds and equipment to provide heart surgery and related cardiac care to children in cambodia and viet nam with birth defects and other issues whose chances of survival would be negligible without such services. 3)the wheelchairs to individuals hospitals in vietnam and cambodia to aid those who cannot afford them.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 95% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • 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. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 76
  • Transparency & Controls: 51
  • Accountability: 75
  • Sustainability: 37
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 80.3%; rating input score 80
  • Program expense ratio: 80.4%; rating input score 80
  • Fundraising efficiency: $12.42 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Limited
    • Requires narrative reports: Limited
    • Conducts field audits: Limited
    • May suspend future funding: Limited
    • Requires financial reports: Limited
    • Conducts site visits: Limited
    • Requires grant agreements: Limited
    • May require repayment: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 0%; rating input score 0; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 75%; rating input score 75; 19th 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: 0.1%; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.45; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.1%; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -5.3% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -2.3% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.8% per year; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 80.3% of revenue deployed · 80.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 8 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $105K · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 23 of 25 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2012 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 42/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 31/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 22/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 48/100.