Community Learning Council

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
731614784
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2020
Forms available
Form 990 2020
Location
Oklahoma City, OK, USA
Phone
4058315248
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Adult, Continuing Education

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$5,755
Expenses
$7,796
Assets
$737
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

People named in this filing

  • GINGER DECOTEAU (BOARD MEMBER)
  • JAN LEMONS (BOARD MEMBER)
  • TAMRA SPRADLIN (BOARD MEMBER)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To end family violence in Oklahoma. At the community learning council, we blend education and counseling together to offer help and hope to those in the communities that we serve. We believe a culture of well-informed individuals, families, students and workers are better prepared to accomplish thier goals and achieve success.

What it reported doing in 2020

A purpose of the community learning council is to design and deliver instruction to adults we need to acquire and or update job and human relations skills. The community learning council, inc. Will fund these efforts through government and corporate grants as well as individual contributions allowing the organization to assist victims of domestic violence, welfare recipients, displaced, mature and disadvantaged adults in an attempt to further their independence and self-sufficiency.

Operating model

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

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 54
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 34
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 68.1%; rating input score 68
  • Program expense ratio: 50.3%; rating input score 50
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 57
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -35.5%; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.09; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -40.5% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -24.6% per year; rating input score 0; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -14.3% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 68.1% of revenue deployed · 50.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 4 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $4K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 17 of 17 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2011 to 2020
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 50/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 36/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 6/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.