Care to Learn
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 471494384
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2015–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
- Location
- Springfield, MO, USA
- Phone
- 4178627771
- Rating
- 84
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Standard
- Sector
- Family Services
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $4,993,156
- Expenses
- $4,535,904
- Assets
- $12,038,949
- Liabilities
- $3,319,329
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
22 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- DEBBIE SHANTZ HART (IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT)
- DR TOM PRATER (PRESIDENT)
- LACIE CLARK (VICE PRESIDENT)
- KRYSTAL SIMON (CEO)
Highest reported compensation
- KRYSTAL SIMON (CEO): $179,901 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 mission of care to learn is to meet children's emergent health, hunger, and hygiene needs so they can succeed in school. Our unique model allows up to partner with school districts and their communities to form a local chapter that empowers school district staff to immediately identify and meet their students' basic needs.
What it reported doing in 2024
Our vision is all students have the confidence, self-worth, and resources to maximize their learning potential and become self sufficient citizens. Our goal is simple; to partner with school districts and their communities to form a local chapter that empowers school district staff to immediately identify and meet their students' basic needs. Care to learn has operated since 2008 and, since that time has provided met students health, hunger, and hygiene needs over 4,657,376 times. Care to learn has filled over 302,573 needs in the last fiscal year. A need is each time one child is given one item/items to meet an emergent health, hunger, or hygiene need. Since care to learn's founding, we have filled over 4,868,559 student needs. (continued on schedule o)
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 79% of its reported program spending out as grants.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 73
- Transparency & Controls: 92
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 61
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 75.3%; rating input score 75
- Program expense ratio: 80.3%; rating input score 80
- Fundraising efficiency: $12.24 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
- Compensation committee: Pass
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
- Written employment contract: Pass
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd 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: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
- 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: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 9.2%; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.65; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.28; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 4%; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 18.3% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 16.4% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 11.6% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 75.3% of revenue deployed · 80.3% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 21 of 21 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $3.6M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $180K · 22 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 37 of 37 current checks pass
- Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 10 filing years from 2015 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 — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 44/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 36/100.