Center for Change Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
203062727
IRS 990 coverage
2021–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Orlando, FL, USA
Phone
4072714452
Rating
86
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Service Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$375,950
Expenses
$390,843
Assets
$139,176
Liabilities
$50,507

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • PEGGIE A BURGESS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • PEGGIE A BURGESS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $26,447 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To provide health education and social services to individuals and families of african american, hispanic and caribbean descent who lack access to economic, social and health resources.

What it reported doing in 2025

Center for Change partners are an essential part of its most relevant grants with offering a blood pressure monitoring program. One partner ranking as the second most relevant as measured by the revenue and expenses for the calendar year is the partnership with the Winter Park Health Foundation. This partnership started in 2024 and was enhanced and continued for three additional quarters in 2025. During 2025, staff made strategic adjustments to how the program was introduced to the clients which included revised educational materials and a clearer explanation of the programs structure. As a result of these enhancements, Center for Change completed the 12 month program with an enrollment of 111 participants in the Heart Health Blood Pressure Program which exceeded the goald of 100 participants. Of those enrolled, 88 participants successfully completed the program, and 80 of them (approximately 72%) showed improvements in their blood pressure readings. Understanding that our partner (WPHF) has a targeted demographically area to include the cities of Winter Park, Maitland, and Eatonville; the program reached 83 participants or approximately 75% of total enrollees who resided in these targeted areas with an average participant age of 65. This success strongly aligned with the WPHFs mission to promote the health and well-being of these communities.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 85% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Revenue has declined or grown slowly and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 87
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 23
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 91.6%; rating input score 92
  • Program expense ratio: 88.1%; rating input score 88
  • Fundraising efficiency: $22.91 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: 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: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -4%; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.36; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.36; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.8%; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4.7% per year; rating input score 100; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -1.3% per year; rating input score 0; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 9.9% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 91.6% of revenue deployed · 88.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $344K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $26K · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 28 of 28 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2021 to 2025
  • 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.

Key Signals

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

  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 58/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 27/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 19/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Audit committee oversight not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 11/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 29/100.