Dandelion Parent Education Incorporated

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
473704981
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2015
Location
Somerville, MA, USA
Phone
8572594184
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Kindergarten, Preschool, Nursery School, Early Admissions

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$657,780
Expenses
$625,786
Assets
$551,967
Liabilities
$405,707

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Devanshi Desai (President)
  • Rosalind McGrail Younis (President (former))

Highest reported compensation

  • Devanshi Desai (President): $101,013 total reported compensation
  • Rosalind McGrail Younis (President (former)): $9,316 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 organization provides high quality early childhood education and care services to children and families in the community with a focus on fostering social, emotional, and academic development in a safe and nurturing environment.

What it reported doing in 2024

Dandelion Montessori is a collaborative community of children ages 2.9 through 6 years, educators, and families based in Somerville, Massachusetts. Established in 2015 as a cooperative community for toddlers and young children, Dandelion provides authentic Montessori education focused on independence, hands-on learning, and social-emotional development. Dandelion is a member of the Wildflower Network, an innovative network of Montessori schools launched by the MIT Media Lab's Social Computing Group.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 75% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 97% 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 - 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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 71
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 38
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 74.4%; rating input score 74
  • Program expense ratio: 78.2%; rating input score 78
  • Fundraising efficiency: $7.96 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 66.7%; rating input score 67; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • 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: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 4.9%; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.88; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.74; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 17.6%; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 9.6% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 11.2% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 74.4% of revenue deployed · 78.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 6 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $490K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $101K · 7 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 28 of 28 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2016 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

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

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 31/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 50/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 39/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 10/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 18/100.