Kids Above All Illinois
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 362171716
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Chicago, IL, USA
- Rating
- 75
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Standard
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $21,547,679
- Expenses
- $21,642,334
- Assets
- $8,206,611
- Liabilities
- $6,690,038
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
36 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Dan Kotowski (President/CEO)
- Kimberly Jones (Vice President CQI)
Highest reported compensation
- Dan Kotowski (President/CEO): $287,726 total reported compensation
- Jeri Laureano (Chief Clinical Officer): $145,948 total reported compensation
- Kimberly Jones (Vice President CQI): $137,743 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Helping chicagoland's at-risk children and their families build, achieve and sustain better lives.
What it reported doing in 2024
Dcfs-traditional, relative, and specialized foster care. The family foster care program includes, traditional, specialized and home-of-relative placement services complimented by clinical, comprehensive case management, therapeutic and foster parent services for children who have been abused or neglected. The program is concerned with the safety, permanency and well being of children in substitute care and their families. Staff works to secure the correct placement and ensures the education, caring and dedication of foster parents.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 99% 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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 79
- Transparency & Controls: 65
- Accountability: 86
- Sustainability: 26
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 86.1%; rating input score 86
- Program expense ratio: 84.2%; rating input score 84
- Fundraising efficiency: $7.93 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 84.2%; rating input score 84; 0th 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: No; rating input score 0
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
- 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: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Fail
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -0.4%; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.38; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.82; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 2.6%; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 7% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 5.8% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 7.8% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 86.1% of revenue deployed · 84.2% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 33 of 33 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
- Leadership: top reported pay $288K · 36 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 31 of 35 current checks pass · 4 findings to review
- Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, executive pay, and related organizations
- Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
- 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 32/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 9 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 29/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 10/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 13/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Fund balance restriction sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D other liabilities reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.