Educational Enrichment Systems Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN: 953415446
IRS 990 coverage: 2013–2024
Forms available: Form 990 2024
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Phone: 8585697273
Rating: 85
Verdict: STRONG
Rating confidence: Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue: $24,120,167
Expenses: $24,225,651
Assets: $24,464,286
Liabilities: $19,573,525

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

CELINE KRIMSTON (PRESIDENT & CEO)

Highest reported compensation

CELINE KRIMSTON (PRESIDENT & CEO): $229,363 total reported compensation
JAMES MASIAS (CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER): $192,677 total reported compensation
BARBARA SAXTON DIR OF (PROGRAMS & QUALITY ASSURANCE): $161,926 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Ees' mission is to provide a unique and affordable child development program designed to meet the social, emotional, physical, and educational needs of the individual child, as we strengthen and preserve the family and all who influence the life of the child.

What it reported doing in 2024

Ees has a contract with san diego county office of education, quality preschool initiative (qpi) funded by first 5 san diego to provide high-quality preschool opportunities. The ultimate goal of the quality preschool initiative is to reduce the school readiness gap and improve school achievement in san diego county by providing children with the kind of early education experiences they need to do well in school and beyond. Qpi has instituted a 5 tier preschool quality rating and improvement system. All ees locations score a 4 or 5 rating through the qpi system.

Operating model

Revenue model: Grant-funded. 97% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
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

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: 91
Transparency & Controls: 74
Accountability: 100
Sustainability: 32
Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

Mission deployment rate: 90.9%; rating input score 91
Program expense ratio: 90.4%; rating input score 90
Fundraising efficiency: $1,652.42 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Pass
Foreign activity oversight: Limited
Grant itemization coverage: Limited
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: -0.4%; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.01; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.8; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
Officer compensation ratio: 5%; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

Program expense growth: 13.3% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
Revenue growth: 13.4% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
Asset growth: 18% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings

Details

Where the money goes: 90.9% of revenue deployed · 90.4% of spending went to programs
Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $21.9M in reported program spending
Leadership: top reported pay $229K · 14 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
Highest-paid contractors: 4 contractors listed · $735K reported
Consistency: 31 of 31 current checks pass
Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
Filing history: 12 filing years from 2013 to 2024
Contacts: How to reach this organization
Money network: 7 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.

Key Signals

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

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 29/100.
Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 36/100.
High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 14/100.
Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 51/100.
High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.