The Kyle Pease Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
274563077
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2014, Form 990-N 2012
Location
Atlanta, GA, USA
Phone
4045566704
Rating
66
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Named Trusts N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,300,495
Expenses
$1,286,036
Assets
$1,935,119
Liabilities
$270,841

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

Leadership & pay

19 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KYLE PEASE (DIRECTOR/CEO)
  • BRENT PEASE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • BRENT PEASE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $140,000 total reported compensation
  • KYLE PEASE (DIRECTOR/CEO): $25,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Create awareness and raise funds to promote success for persons with disabilities by providing assistance to meet their individual needs through sports.

What it reported doing in 2024

In 2024, the kyle pease foundation continued to grow and provide life changing events and opportunities for both athletes, their families, and volunteers alike. Our grants that we were able to give away in 2024 totalled over $85,000 to help purchase a wheelchair accessible van for garnet palmer, a powerdrive system for chase hutchins' manual wheelchair and bathroom remodel for cory morrow. With 46 events across 14 states in the united states of america. With exceeding our goals for attendance, we had 150 different kpf athletes with 54 of those being brand new to kpf. With those huge kpf athlete numbers we needed an even larger number of volunteers to get us through the entire event calendar, which saw over 420 volunteers with 242 being first time volunteers, which got us over the line of 1,200 finish lines.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 97% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 82% 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 the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 52
  • Transparency & Controls: 73
  • Accountability: 73
  • Sustainability: 66
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 40.3%; rating input score 40
  • Program expense ratio: 71%; rating input score 71
  • Fundraising efficiency: $14.84 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 31.8%; rating input score 32; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 88.9%; rating input score 89; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • 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: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 44.1%; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.5; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.14; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 12.8%; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 11% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 20.6% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 30.7% per year; rating input score 100; 93rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 40.3% of revenue deployed · 71% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 16 of 18 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $913K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $140K · 19 people listed
  • Consistency: 30 of 31 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2015 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 40/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 32/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 51/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 52/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 23/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 52/100.