Early Childhood Collective of Douglas County Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
743130758
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Lawrence, KS, USA
Phone
7858428719
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Remedial Reading, Reading Encouragement

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,437,710
Expenses
$1,251,815
Assets
$1,032,526
Liabilities
$652,989

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Richard Minder (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Richard Minder (Executive Director): $66,591 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Early Childhood Collective connects the coalition of early childhood resources that serves growing families in Douglas County. ECCo serves as the fiscal agent and administrative hub for community-based early childhood programs that provide education support and resources to families from pregnancy through early childhood.

What it reported doing in 2024

ECCos Care Coordination and Family Support program provides case management parent education doula services and mental health support to families from pregnancy through early childhood. The program is implemented in partnership with Centro Hispano and Doulas of Douglas County. ECCo employs a team of bilingual care coordinators who deliver culturally and linguistically responsive case management and parenting support. To complement this work ECCo contracts with community-based doulas and a licensed therapist to provide perinatal support postpartum care community engagement and therapeutic services for families experiencing social emotional or economic stressors. Families receive advocacy resource navigation developmental screenings and individualized support that promotes maternal and child wellbeing.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 79% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
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

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 78
  • Transparency & Controls: 61
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 50
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 74.3%; rating input score 74
  • Program expense ratio: 85.3%; rating input score 85
  • Fundraising efficiency: $51.05 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 76.9%; rating input score 77; 0th 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: 95.1%; rating input score 95; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 12.9%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.82; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.63; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.3%; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -0.5% per year; rating input score 0; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.8% per year; rating input score 100; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 11.3% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 74.3% of revenue deployed · 85.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $1.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $67K · 12 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 40 of 44 current checks pass · 4 findings to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 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.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 37/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 12/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Insurance column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 52/100.