Katies Kause

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
271632226
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2018
Forms available
Form 990 2018, Form 990-EZ 2014
Location
Salem, OR, USA
Rating
54
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Specifically Named Diseases

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$56,391
Expenses
$56,606
Assets
$34,362
Liabilities
$15,712

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2018. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KIM OSMUS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • KIM OSMUS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $13,000 total reported compensation
  • CHARLOTTE GOVERNALE (PROGRAM DIR DEVELOPMENTT CONS): $12,701 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2018. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To provide empotional support and temporary financial assistance for children with cystic fibrosis and their families.

What it reported doing in 2018

Katies kause offers assistance to families in several forms: transportation assistance: all cf families need to get their child to and from hospital visits and medical appointmens up to several times per month. Families are provided with resources the need, including gas cards, transportation passes, car repair, and one time assistance with car insurancehousing assistance: katies kause also works with families to assist them with housing. Many families have to balance h ousing expenses with medical expenses and choose to provide the much needed medical care and quickly get behind in their rent or mortgage payments. Katies kause will provide up to three months rent or mortgage to help these families. We work closely with the families to link them to all availabe services in the community medical assistance: katies kause works closely with cf social workers in local hospitals and the families to evaluate medical needs including prescriptions, in home equipment, appointments and travel.we work with the families to network them with the appropriate referral services such as counseling and legal issues provided through partner agencies. Katies kause helps with expenses on a case by case basis

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 70% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 78% for direct work, and 22% for grants.

The verdict

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue has grown recently. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 46
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 18
  • Sustainability: 34
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 52.2%; rating input score 52
  • Program expense ratio: 52%; rating input score 52
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 44
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: -0.4%; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.61; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.46; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 45.4%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -30.6% per year; rating input score 0; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.1% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.2% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 52.2% of revenue deployed · 52% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 9 board members independent · 4 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $29K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $13K · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 17 of 18 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2015 to 2018
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 52/100.
  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 52/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 19/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 55/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 7/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 12/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.