Early Learning Indiana
Legal name: Early Learning Indiana Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 350888763
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Indianapolis, IN, US
- Phone
- 317-636-9197
- Rating
- 89
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Child Day Care
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $38,153,964
- Expenses
- $63,036,701
- Assets
- $55,555,896
- Liabilities
- $8,038,016
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
19 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- MAUREEN WEBER (PRESIDENT & CEO)
Highest reported compensation
- MAUREEN WEBER (PRESIDENT & CEO): $396,217 total reported compensation
- DAVID STEWART (CFO): $268,170 total reported compensation
- JONATHAN DILLEY (CHIEF OF STAFF): $225,166 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 ensure every child is empowered with the essential skills to thrive in kindergarten and beyond.
What it reported doing in 2024
Early learning Indiana believes if we do not capitalize on the opportunity of learning in the early years that children cannot reach their full potential and Indiana will not be truly prosperous. To accomplish this mission, eli seeks to inform early education practice, public policy, and funding through research insights. We incubate pilot programs, invest in community-led projects that increase the effectiveness of the early learning workforce, and expand access to care. Eli also operates 11 high-quality day early learning schools in Indiana and provides safe and developmentally enriching care for infants and toddlers, with family support and health services at six locations in marion county through an early head start-child care partnership.
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 48% for direct work, and 52% for grants.
The verdict
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 94
- Transparency & Controls: 84
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 26
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 92.4%; rating input score 92
- Fundraising efficiency: $35.18 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 17th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Pass
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 97.6%; rating input score 98; 28th 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: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
- 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: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -65.2%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.88; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.14; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 2.8%; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 16.2% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 11.6% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 14.1% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 10 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 92.4% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $58.2M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $396K · 19 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $4.8M reported
- Consistency: 36 of 37 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 13 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 91 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 84 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.
- 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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 1/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 32/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.