Lakeview Village Foundation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 742809238
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Lenexa, KS, USA
- Phone
- 9137442430
- Rating
- 51
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Public Foundations
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,027,824
- Expenses
- $292,820
- Assets
- $7,473,089
- Liabilities
- $105,773
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
12 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- ROBERT I CLAUSEN JR (PRESIDENT/CEO)
Highest reported compensation
- ROBERT I CLAUSEN JR (PRESIDENT/CEO): $375,548 total reported compensation
- HEATH LEUCK (CFO): $218,972 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To enrich the lives of residents of lakeview village and to create a community that values giving as a way of life.
What it reported doing in 2024
The lakeview village foundation is involved with and helps implement the strategic plans of lakeview village, inc., a Kansas not-for-profit corporation. The foundation raises funding for various lakeview village, inc. Projects, programs and services that benefit residents of lakeview village and its sister community, ridgeview village. The foundation is governed by a 10-member board of trustees, six of whom are lakeview residents, and is supported by the generosity of residents, families, friends, charitable foundation and businesses. Our primary focus is to provide assistance to lakeview village residents who can no longer afford the full cost of their care, through no fault of their own.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 82% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 80% for direct work, and 20% for grants.
The verdict
MIXED - 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: 21
- Transparency & Controls: 66
- Accountability: 80
- Sustainability: 83
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 12.3%; rating input score 12
- Program expense ratio: 38.8%; rating input score 39
- Fundraising efficiency: $4.72 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 16th 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: 89.8%; rating input score 90; 38th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 81.8%; rating input score 82; 18th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Fail
- 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: 71.5%; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 25.52; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 23.4%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -9.7% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 3% per year; rating input score 100; 31st percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 12.6% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 12.3% of revenue deployed · 38.8% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 9 of 11 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $114K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $376K · 12 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 25 of 26 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
- Related organizations: 4 filed related-organization links
- 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 12/100.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 39/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 16/100.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 11/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.