The Partnership for Children

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
431854693
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2013
Forms available
Form 990 2013
Location
Kansas City, MO, USA
Phone
8165319200
Rating
62
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Family Services

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$206,627
Expenses
$246,743
Assets
$-40,920
Liabilities
$170,466

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Charron Townsend (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Charron Townsend (Executive Director): $62,502 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To focus Missouris energy on enchancing life for children and youth. To positively impact life for children and youth. Partnership for Children advocates for public policies and practice researches and analyzes critical issues, identifies gaps and ensures they are addressed and mobilizes public support for specific initiatives and interventions.

What it reported doing in 2013

As Missouris KIDS COUNT grantee, Partnership for Children PFC produced the annual KIDS COUNT in Missouri Data Book. It is PFCs most comprehensive and widely referenced research publication. This report provides state and county-level data on a number of child well-being indicators including child health, education, safety and economic status. The data is KIDS COUNT is presented to and used by lawmakers, media community leaders, childrens service providers, and child advocates statewide to assess how Missouris kids are doing, identiy opportunities for improvement, and develop programs and policies to improve their lives.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 49
  • Transparency & Controls: 79
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 8
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 55.1%; rating input score 55
  • Program expense ratio: 46.1%; rating input score 46
  • Fundraising efficiency: $6.01 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 1st 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: -19.4%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: -0.17; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 25.3%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -14.9% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -220.9% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 55.1% of revenue deployed · 46.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $114K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $63K · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 25 of 28 current checks pass · 3 findings to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2010 to 2013
  • 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.

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 55/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 46/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 28/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 13/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Occupancy column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 15/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.