KC Social Innovation Center Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
811552437
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2021
Forms available
Form 990 2021
Location
Kansas City, MO, USA
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community Coalitions

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$571,264
Expenses
$595,708
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Kari Keefe (Executive Director)
  • Anurag Patel (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Kari Keefe (Executive Director): $85,715 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2021. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

KCSIC manages a portfolio of programs, projects and pilots that create a network for technology, community, investment, education and business sectors to work directly with youth, and come together to solve Kansas City's biggest problems and help transform communities.

What it reported doing in 2021

Consulting - KCSIC provides consulting and expertise to clients as a think and do tank helping create a sandbox for technology, community, education and business to collaborate to explore and catalyze solutions to bring value to digitally empowered communities. In 2018, KCSIC helped assess Metropolitan Community College's internal capacity for innovation to help map a route for innovation practices around a core set of engagement and experiences designed for staff and faculty, with the goal of accelerating the modernization of the institution's people, spaces and places to better meet student and community needs. Notably, KCSIC 1 introduced Design Thinking to the Chancellor's Innovation Council, 2 led an institutional kickoff with a Summer Innovation Summit event that resulted in 36 idea submissions, three of which advanced to a demo day style pitch at the annual In-Service event where one project received an investment of $10,000 and two other projects were awarded internal capacity and resources to launch their concept throughout the District and 4 helped MCC create a process and protocol to support and advance ideas, scaffolding an Innovation in a box Playbook, coordinating Design Thinking workshops for innovation-curious staff/faculty, and providing capacity and training for innovation leaders and project teams, and innovation coaching to help projects and ideas advance.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 86% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 76% for direct work, and 24% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 72
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 11
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 76.7%; rating input score 77
  • Program expense ratio: 73.5%; rating input score 74
  • Fundraising efficiency: $13.85 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 0%; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -4.3%; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 14.4%; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 11.8% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9.6% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -14.1% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 76.7% of revenue deployed · 73.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $438K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $86K · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 26 of 27 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2016 to 2021
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 44/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 18/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 24/100.