Collaborative Network of Lucas

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
341915282
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2010
Forms available
Form 990 2010
Location
Fremont, OH, USA
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Community, Neighborhood Development

Reported finances

Revenue
$471,851
Expenses
$271,051
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2010. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2010. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Child intervention services

What it reported doing in 2010

Child care program: child and adult care food program - to initiate, maintain and expand food service programs for children in daycare homes. The purpose is to integrate nutritious food service with organized care services for enrolled participants.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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

- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 48
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • Program expense ratio: Limited
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 79th 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 42.6%; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.6%; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -75.3% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -200% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $254K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $15K · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 18 of 18 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2009 to 2010
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.

Key Signals

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

  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 44/100.