Kids International Ministries Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
205881456
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Lawrence, KS, USA
Phone
7853936102
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Residential Care & Adult Day Programs

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,023,024
Expenses
$1,109,653
Assets
$152,323
Liabilities
$1,495

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • NORMAN DENLER (KIM PRESIDENT/CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • FRANCIS CHERRY (TREASURER/MISSIONARY): $16,243 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Kids international ministries was organized for the purpose of implenting and operating orphanages in impoverished and/or underserved foreign countries to provide long-term and short--term services, food and basic life needs to orphaned children. The goal is to prepare children to honor god in their everyday lives in an environment that cares for their spiritual, educational, physical, and emortional needs.

What it reported doing in 2025

Provide educational, religious, medical services and disaster relief to improverish communities in the phillipines by giving direct support to the cuatro christian school, new faith family children's home orphanage, faith academy, yunjin lyso ministry center, and other ministries of kids int'l ministry phillipines.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 77% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 84
  • Transparency & Controls: 53
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 23
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 97.4%; rating input score 97
  • Program expense ratio: 89.8%; rating input score 90
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Limited
    • Requires narrative reports: Limited
    • Conducts field audits: Limited
    • May suspend future funding: Limited
    • Requires financial reports: Limited
    • Conducts site visits: Limited
    • Requires grant agreements: Limited
    • May require repayment: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 12%; rating input score 12; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -8.5%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.14; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 1.5%; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0.2% per year; rating input score 100; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2% per year; rating input score 100; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -0.5% per year; rating input score 0; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 97.4% of revenue deployed · 89.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $997K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $16K · 13 people listed
  • Consistency: 20 of 22 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 12/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 15/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 7/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 55/100.