Kc Mothers in Charge

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
472342408
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2017
Location
Kansas City, MO, USA
Phone
8169212601
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Scouting

Reported finances

Revenue
$568,736
Expenses
$512,488
Assets
$344,527
Liabilities
$19,458

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • CHRISTINA ESTEBAN (MANAGING DIRECTOR): $91,340 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Reduce violent crime through prevention, education, and intervention and to guide and support families of victims of homicides.

What it reported doing in 2024

In 2023, kc mothers in charge provided 81 visits to local homicide scenes, 39 home visits, provided 41 families with emergency assistance, and added 87 new clients. During the past ten years, a unique spectrum of services is provided to local families, including the following personalized vigils, one support group for non-fatal shootings and one for families that have encountered homicide, both held in-person, and individual guardians receive weekly phone calls from volunteers to personally check in with them. Kc mothers in charge held two special events to raise awareness about anti-violence efforts, share how individuals can engage with kc mothers in charge, and educate the local community on other family resources and mechanisms for anti-violence engagement. Through regular communication with kanas city police department and local agencies kc mothers in charge is able to provide immediate and ongoing services to families that have had loved ones killed by homicide.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 60% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - 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: 56
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 46
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 53.6%; rating input score 54
  • Program expense ratio: 59.5%; rating input score 59
  • Fundraising efficiency: $18.3 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 22nd 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 9.9%; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.67; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.06; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 17.8%; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 14.9% per year; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 16.7% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 17.2% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 53.6% of revenue deployed · 59.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $305K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $91K · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 27 of 28 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2018 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 54/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 59/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 56/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 31/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 18/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 50/100.