Columbus Learning Center Management Corp D/b/a Community Education Coalition

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
352120567
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Columbus, IN, USA
Phone
8123148507
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Nonmonetary Support N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$10,369,655
Expenses
$10,802,444
Assets
$37,262,633
Liabilities
$15,780,893

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

36 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KATHY OREN (PRESIDENT/CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • REINHOLD HILL (DESIGNATED DIRECTOR): $261,290 total reported compensation
  • KATHY OREN (PRESIDENT/CEO): $236,724 total reported compensation
  • JACK HESS (ADVISOR TO EXEC. COMM.): $232,168 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 community education coalition (cec) is a partnership of education, business, and community stakeholders focused on aligning and integrating our community learning system, economic development, and quality of life.

What it reported doing in 2024

The cec serves as the primary backbone organization that facilitates the development of the community and regional learning system, especially the eight counties from which students are drawn to the airpark columbus college campus. The airpark campus further developed as a result of the original formation of the economic opportunity through education by 2015 initiative, funded by a lilly endowment grant of $26 million in 2007, and a follow-on grant of $2.1 million. Portions of these grants enhanced the airpark education programs and facilities. Included in the follow-on grant was the establishment of civiclab in 2012 (a program of cec). Civiclab formed to strengthen the greater columbus, Indiana area and its use of "stakeholder thinking and ways of working together. Civiclab creates the tools and frameworks that form the underlying foundation for the practice of community collaboration, teaches these tools broadly across the country, and then brings the learning back to improve the greater community of columbus, Indiana.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 76% for direct work, and 24% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 81
  • Transparency & Controls: 55
  • Accountability: 86
  • Sustainability: 37
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 93.2%; rating input score 93
  • Program expense ratio: 89.4%; rating input score 89
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 5.7%; rating input score 6; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -4.2%; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.45; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.42; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 12.7%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4.9% per year; rating input score 100; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1% per year; rating input score 100; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3.2% per year; rating input score 100; 24th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 93.2% of revenue deployed · 89.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 25 of 30 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $9.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $261K · 36 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $2.4M reported
  • Consistency: 24 of 25 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 9 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 11 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: Grant itemization coverage scored 6/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 18/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Audit committee oversight not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 12/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 35/100.