Love Fund for Children Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
431298128
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Kansas City, MO, USA
Phone
8169329170
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$492,977
Expenses
$648,687
Assets
$428,868
Liabilities
$1,368

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

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CANDICE SHUM (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • DIONNE PLEASANT (EXECUTIVE DI): $117,008 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The love fund for children bridges the gap in youth services by partnering with advocates to fulfill unique, unmet needs of children across Kansas city.

What it reported doing in 2024

Providing goods, services and a variety of assistance and benefits to individual children through cooperation with approximately 100 different agencies or providers. Program services include clothing, shoes, outerwear, medical equipment, beds, cribs and bedding, assistive technology, hygene items, transportation, therapy and theraputic tools, transportation and educational tools. In 2024, the love fund for children served 9,430 children.the life essentials program, which provides safety net emergency assistance for basic needs, served 717 children with a wide variety of needs. This set a record. The average cost to serve achild was 174.84. The top categories in terms of request were clothing, hygiene andbeds/bedding. The sack it for santa program also set a record serving 2,176 teenagers (ages 12-18) whomight not otherwise receive anything during the holidays. Each teen received a large reusablebag filled with winter warmth items (blanket, hat, socks, and gloves) as well as hygiene supplies, a journal and a gift and stocking stuffer from one of four categories (art, games, spa or sports). The annual back to school supply drive and distribution served 6,400 children through community distribution events and a partnership with Kansas city public schools.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 97% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 78% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 69
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 74
  • Sustainability: 22
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 83.7%; rating input score 84
  • Program expense ratio: 63.3%; rating input score 63
  • Fundraising efficiency: $2.99 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 80th 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -31.6%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.66; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 18%; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6.8% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.2% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.8% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 83.7% of revenue deployed · 63.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $411K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $117K · 16 people listed
  • Consistency: 28 of 28 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2013 to 2024
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 13/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 9/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 30/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 21/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 52/100.