Love Must Act Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
814553602
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Louisville, KY, USA
Phone
6467120737
Rating
52
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Promotion of International Understanding

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$335,584
Expenses
$387,423
Assets
$26,983
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Andrew W Joyce (Vice President)
  • Stacy F Sauls (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Andrew W Joyce (Vice President): $55,000 total reported compensation
  • Stacy F Sauls (President): $25,500 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Love Must Act builds partnerships between individuals and organizations to support education for disadvantaged students in the United States and overseas. It supports a primary school in South Africa, both financially and administratively, and a nursing education training program in Gaza.

What it reported doing in 2024

Holy Cross Primary School, Grahamstown/Makhanda, SA. We successfully applied for and managed grants in SA directly to the school in addition to the grants from Love Must Act to the school ($181,082); we included approximately 10 students with disabilities; and facilitated well over 170 medical visits. We support seven teachers and five support staff. All students receive some form of financial assistance. We had impressive English reading scores, especially since English is the first language for almost none of our students.

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 100% of its reported program spending out as 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: 37
  • Transparency & Controls: 68
  • Accountability: 67
  • Sustainability: 21
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 43.4%; rating input score 43
  • Program expense ratio: 37.6%; rating input score 38
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 84.6%; rating input score 85; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Fail
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • 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: 87.5%; rating input score 88; 24th 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: Fail
    • 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: -15.4%; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.07; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 20.8%; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -1.4% per year; rating input score 0; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9.4% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -41.5% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 43.4% of revenue deployed · 37.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 8 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $146K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $55K · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 27 of 29 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 43/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 38/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 8 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 17/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 5/100.
  • 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.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 18/100.