Hungry Children Project

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
510178612
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2013–2013
Forms available
Form 990 2012, Form 990-EZ 2013
Location
North Hills, CA, USA
Phone
8188321890
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
International Relief

Reported finances

Revenue
$30,106
Expenses
$22,939
Assets
$44,376
Liabilities
$4,199

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2013. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Kenneth Wilcox (President, US)
  • Tore Stautland (President-Intl.)

People named in this filing

  • Paul S Webb (Chairman)
  • Nancy E Webb (Secretary)
  • Kenneth Wilcox (President, US)

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 2013. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The health care for children in need, both preventative, hygiene and treatment for third-world countries and well as the poor areas of the United States.

What it reported doing in 2013

The receipt, distribution and oversight of medical surgical kits, medical equipment and personal hygiene items to hurting children throughout the world.

Operating model

Revenue model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent revenue detail to tell how this nonprofit funds its work.
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.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Revenue has declined or grown slowly and reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 85
  • Transparency & Controls: 73
  • Sustainability: 60
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 76.2%; rating input score 76
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 88.9%; rating input score 89; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 23.8%; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.93; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.09; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 79.6%; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -182.7% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 24.3% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 76.2% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $23K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 8 of 8 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • 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.

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 — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 26/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.
  • High — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization is recorded as not currently operating in California.