Collective For Youth
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 274577729
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2011–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Omaha, NE, USA
- Phone
- 4029322025
- Rating
- 82
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Educational Services and Schools - Other
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $10,710,972
- Expenses
- $10,511,206
- Assets
- $27,024,775
- Liabilities
- $1,706,745
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
13 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Megan Addison (Executive Director)
Highest reported compensation
- Megan Addison (Executive Director): $168,478 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To advocate for, facilitate resources, and provide quality training for out of school time program providers.
What it reported doing in 2024
Collective for Youth (CFY) is a connector for advocacy, resources and training for out of school time providers. They are committed to connecting youth to high quality programs and to growing a community of thriving partners who ignite the imagination and grow the minds of youth. CFY partners with more than 60 providers to oversee after school activities for over 6,000 elementary and middle school-aged students in 41 Omaha public schools each year. Each year over 300 youth educators from 30 community organizations participate on professional development programs provided by CFY. Beyond facilitating the after school programs, CFY coordinates high quality experiences for youth. This includes multiple educational field trips during the summer for over 20 different organizations. This allows the youth to get out into the community. Our partners have access to a STEM library that provides resources for hands on STEM activities including training and curriculum support.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 73% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 87% 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. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 91
- Transparency & Controls: 71
- Accountability: 84
- Sustainability: 59
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 91.9%; rating input score 92
- Program expense ratio: 93.2%; rating input score 93
- Fundraising efficiency: $49.95 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Missing
- 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; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
- 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: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 1.9%; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.57; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.06; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 1.6%; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 8.4% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 12.2% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 21.9% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 91.9% of revenue deployed · 93.2% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $9.8M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $168K · 13 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 36 of 36 current checks pass
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 13 filing years from 2011 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 38 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 37 filed related-organization links
- 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 42/100.