Kansas Children's Service League Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
481199143
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Wichita, KS, USA
Phone
7852743100
Rating
49
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Public Foundations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,077,128
Expenses
$281,007
Assets
$8,427,324
Liabilities
$168,172

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

Leadership & pay

17 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • GAIL COZADD (TRUSTEE/ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR): $169,186 total reported compensation
  • KENT CURRAN (TRUSTEE/TREASURER): $135,629 total reported compensation
  • JENNIFER MONTGOMERY (TRUSTEE/ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR): $18,717 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To protect and promote the well-being of children by providing ongoing support of the charitable mission of the Kansas children's service league.

What it reported doing in 2024

Since the formation of the Kansas children's service league foundation, the foundation principal has grown to over $8 million. The foundation's principal is invested in two different investment streams: the endowment fund and commerce trust company. These investments are managed under investment guidelines in the investment policy statement established by the finance committee and approved by the board of trustees. The investments except the endowment fund are set up to accept both restricted and unrestricted donations of various types of gifts such as cash, stocks, property, etc., as well as various endowment vehicles. The long term goal of the Kansas children's service league foundation is to grow the foundation corpus and to protect and promote the well-being of children by providing ongoing support of the charitable mission of the Kansas children's service league.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 90% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 9
  • Transparency & Controls: 72
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 85
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 4.8%; rating input score 5
  • Program expense ratio: 17.8%; rating input score 18
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 16th 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: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 86.5%; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 29.99; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 25%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -9.4% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 63% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -2.1% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 4.8% of revenue deployed · 17.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 12 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $50K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $169K · 17 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 30 of 31 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 5 filed related-organization links
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 5/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 18/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 8/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.