Invisible Children Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
542164338
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
6195622799
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
International Development

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,103,416
Expenses
$3,557,186
Assets
$2,589,132
Liabilities
$1,858,550

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LISA DOUGAN (CEO THEN BOARD MBR (EFF. 1/8/25))
  • MARY T AN (CEO (FROM 1/7/25))

Highest reported compensation

  • LISA DOUGAN (CEO THEN BOARD MBR (EFF. 1/8/25)): $158,565 total reported compensation
  • PAUL RONAN (DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH): $111,522 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Our mission is to end violent conflict and foster thriving ecosystems in solidarity with our world's most at-risk communities.

What it reported doing in 2024

Protection: invisible children focuses on the protection of civilians from violence through connecting people to each other and the outside world, violence prevention, and community resilience. Over the past decade, invisible children has connected remote communities in central africa through its early warning system, facilitating twice-daily calls among communities in one of the world's most insecure places, and thus increasing the safety of more than 300,000 people. Thousands of incidents of armed group activity reported by these communities through the early warning system have been reported by invisible children's crisis tracker in near-real time, an innovative crisis-mapping social web platform, ensuring the world cannot ignore the safety issues facing these vulnerable populations. Invisible children has also promoted the safe surrender of members of the lord's resistance army, contributing to more than a 90% reduction in violence over the past decade, and helped to facilitate their journey back home.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 85% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 65% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 70
  • Transparency & Controls: 78
  • Accountability: 93
  • Sustainability: 46
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 62.5%; rating input score 63
  • Program expense ratio: 72.1%; rating input score 72
  • Fundraising efficiency: $1,261.81 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 80%; rating input score 80; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Pass
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Pass
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Pass
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 87.5%; rating input score 88; 19th 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: 13.3%; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.73; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.72; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 7.6%; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -0.9% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -8.7% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -22% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 62.5% of revenue deployed · 72.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 8 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $159K · 10 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $150K reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 34 current checks pass · 3 findings to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, executive pay, and related organizations
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 4 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 27/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 12/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 39/100.
  • 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.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D revenue reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.