Kankakee County Community Services Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
363478633
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Kankakee, IL, USA
Phone
8159337883
Rating
85
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community, Neighborhood Development

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,366,590
Expenses
$4,747,373
Assets
$1,253,467
Liabilities
$1,085,858

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DANA WASHINGTON (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • VINCENT E CLARK (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (THRU AUG 2024))
  • PAULA WELLS (INTERIM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • VINCENT E CLARK (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (THRU AUG 2024)): $113,077 total reported compensation
  • PAULA WELLS (INTERIM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $98,361 total reported compensation
  • KARESSA CRITE-BENDER (FISCAL OFFICER): $90,397 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Kankakee county community services, inc. Believes that individuals and families deserve economic wellbeing. We work in collaboration with funders and local organizations to offer opportunities to educate, empower and build self-reliance.

What it reported doing in 2024

Energy programs: weatherization: weatherization services consist of cost-effective energy efficiency measures for existing residential and multifamily housing with low-income residents. There are three components to the weatherization program: mechanical, architectural and health and safety. The mechanical component addresses the heating and cooling operational system, hot water heater and the ventilation of the home. The architectural component addresses the whole house, which includes the outer shell, the insulation, the electrical system and air sealing. The health and safety component protects the health and safety of the client and their family as well as the ihwap workers. Low-income home energy assistance program (liheap): liheap is a program that provides an offset to the high cost of heat related utilities for low-income families. For households that are disconnected from a heating source, the reconnect assistance program provides guidelines to help get the household services restored upon completion of application. The emergency furnace program provides assistance to low-income homeowners with a nonoperational furnace. Comed care energy assistance programs offer the residential special hardship fund for households in need.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 99% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 66% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 86
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 91
  • Sustainability: 16
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 99.8%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 91.8%; rating input score 92
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 44th 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -8.7%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.26; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.87; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.4%; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1.9% per year; rating input score 100; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.1% per year; rating input score 100; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 0.5% per year; rating input score 100; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 99.8% of revenue deployed · 91.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $4.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $113K · 15 people listed
  • Consistency: 31 of 32 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 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.

  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 15/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 8/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 8/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 45/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.