Louisville Youth Group Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
611340329
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2019, Form 990-N 2018
Location
Louisville, KY, USA
Phone
5024302016
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Intergroup, Race Relations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$417,596
Expenses
$451,020
Assets
$121,415
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

17 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ELANA ROSENBERG (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • ELANA ROSENBERG (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $77,783 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

LYG empowers QTBIPoC/LGBTQIA+ youth to grow into healthy and resilient leaders through community connection, life skills education, and social advocacy.

What it reported doing in 2024

Empowerment Camp: Every fall, LYG youth go on a weekend-long Empowerment Camp at YMCAs Camp Piomingo. This is an opportunity for youth to get outside of their comfort zones in a safe and affirming environment. Guided by staff and mentors, they participate in activities designed to build self-esteem, connect to a supportive community, and identify leadership skills. Group programs: LYG currently offers several regularly scheduled group meetings for LGBTQIA+ youth ages 5-20, including groups for youth ages 5-12, youth 13-17, adults 18-24 and groups specifically for gender diverse youth and youth of the global majority. Pride Prom: LYG actively participates in the many Pride opportunities in the Kentuckiana region. Pride month is an important way for LGBTQIA+ youth to connect with their roots and engage with the local community. Each spring, LYG hosts a Pride Prom as an alternative for youth who may not feel safe or welcome attending their school prom.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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 - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 57
  • Transparency & Controls: 93
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 28
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 62.6%; rating input score 63
  • Program expense ratio: 57.9%; rating input score 58
  • Fundraising efficiency: $5.22 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • 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: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -8%; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.27; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 17.2%; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 30.3% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 13.6% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 12.2% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 62.6% of revenue deployed · 57.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 16 of 16 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $261K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $78K · 17 people listed
  • Consistency: 22 of 23 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 9 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 58/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 23/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 25/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 15/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 22/100.