The Kidney Trust

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
204941189
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2013
Forms available
Form 990 2013
Location
San Bruno, CA, USA
Phone
2537334677
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Kidney Disease

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$907,081
Expenses
$766,082
Assets
$1,924,369
Liabilities
$42,180

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2013. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

People named in this filing

  • MARGARET LAWS (BOARD CHAIR)
  • JOHN SCHARFFLER (BOARD MEMBER)
  • DERRICK DONALD (BOARD SECRETARY)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2013. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Reduce the human and economic costs of chronic kidney disease (ckd).

What it reported doing in 2013

Chronic kidney disease (ckd) rapid screening: the trust launched an innovative rapid ckd screening program in 2007, which is conducted nationally in partnership with employers and community organizations to identify people with ckd in relatively early stages and to motivate them to seek appropriate medical care and lifestyle changes. By the end of 2013, the trust's screening total increased to nearly 40,000 people across the country.ckd education and awareness: the trust furthered ckd education and awareness in a number of ways, including developing its website as an education tool, supporting events that both raise ckd awareness and funds for the trust's programs, distributing a quarterly newsletter, and providing ckd education directly to consumers at healthfairs and other employer and community events.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 87% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
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.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - 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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 56
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 76
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 57.5%; rating input score 58
  • Program expense ratio: 68.1%; rating input score 68
  • Fundraising efficiency: $1.91 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 15.5%; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.51; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -49.2% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -18.3% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 57.5% of revenue deployed · 68.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $521K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $354K reported
  • Consistency: 24 of 24 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2010 to 2013
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 58/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 6/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.