Jazzie Cares Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
823577116
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2021–2021
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2021, Form 990-N 2021
Location
Overland Park, KS, USA
Phone
9136020272
Rating
91
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Parent Agencies

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,224
Expenses
$2,224
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2021. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

2 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Jasmine Gillians (Chief Executive Officer)

People named in this filing

  • Jasmine Gillians (Chief Executive Officer)
  • Charisma Thomas (Chief Operating Officer)

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 2021. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Jazzie Cares Foundation's sole purpose was to host free events for the community, providing free necessities and resources. Mainly the Greater KC Community Baby Shower, to provide free baby necessities to new & expectant single & low-income mothers. The event was hosted each May, Mother's Day weekend. Each event assisted at least 75 families.

What it reported doing in 2021

Hosted a Loads of Love event in February 2021 providing 20 families with baskets of household items including laundry detergent, bleach, paper towels, toilet paper, lysol and disinfectant wipes, hand sanitizer, face masks, clothing hangers, dryer sheets; dish washing liquid, laundry baskets, bars of soap.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filed totals do not add up and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 100
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Sustainability: 26
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

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

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 0%; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 2 filed program accomplishments · $3K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 2 people listed
  • Consistency: 8 of 9 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part III program expenses within total did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 2/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 39/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.