Lives Worth Saving

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
330628295
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Orange, CA, USA
Phone
7143215701
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Religion Related N.E.C.
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$271,963
Expenses
$269,226
Assets
$65,848
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • KEVIN BROWN (SENIOR PASTO): $25,750 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To establish and maintain a church, to license and ordain ministers of the gospel and to support missionaries and their activities

What it reported doing in 2025

Side-by-side church international - a non-denominational church providing training for world missions through a.c.t.i.o.n. Institute, prayer journeys and gang intervention through lives worth saving gang intervention. Teaching god's word and conducting weekly services benefitting approximately 30 people. The lives worth saving gang intervention program has been recognized by law enforcement, community leaders and elected officials for its innovative approach to gang intervention. Kenya - starvation elimination and education development program (s.e.e.d.) (for children) - feeding and educating orphans and those without access to food and education in the villages of migori, agongo and mariwa kenya. In 2022, over 1,000 children per day were fed and educated at these three centers. This includes a new water well for the village of mariwa.

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 84% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 86
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 60
  • Sustainability: 34
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 96.5%; rating input score 96
  • Program expense ratio: 97.5%; rating input score 97
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 88.9%; rating input score 89; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Pass
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 49.5%; rating input score 49; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 75%; rating input score 75; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 1%; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.24; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 9.6%; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -0.9% per year; rating input score 0; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.3% per year; rating input score 100; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.9% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 96.5% of revenue deployed · 97.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 8 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $262K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $26K · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 18 of 19 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 6 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 49/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 38/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 14/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 27/100.