El Paso Center for Children Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 741695944
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- El Paso, TX, USA
- Phone
- 9155658361
- Rating
- 83
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Standard
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $7,296,183
- Expenses
- $6,933,819
- Assets
- $3,495,252
- Liabilities
- $478,138
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
18 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Elizabeth Senger (CEO)
- Mark Pries (Vice President)
- Cecilia Watt (President)
Highest reported compensation
- Elizabeth Senger (CEO): $157,215 total reported compensation
- Monica Ayala (CFO): $118,231 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
El paso center for children, inc's purpose is to provide homes for dependent and neglected children and an array of support services for emotionally disturbed children, adolescents, and their families. The organization operates entirely in the city of el paso, Texas.
What it reported doing in 2024
Hopes (healthy outcomes through prevention and early support) is acollaborative program to prevent child abuse and neglect in families withchildren from birth to age 5. It provides evidence-based home visiting, parenting education, and wraparound case management services designed toreduce the risk factors that contribute to child abuse/neglect; tostrengthen families' parenting skills and knowledge of early childhooddevelopment; and to link families to community resources they need toensure the health and well-being of their young children. The program aims to strengthen families by providing parent cafes to gain resiliency, social and emotional connection, and are more willing to seek ut services to assist them through difficult times. In 2024, the center assisted 2,333 individuals and provided 3,105 units of service.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Grant-funded. 92% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 76% for direct work, and 24% for grants.
The verdict
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown and expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 81
- Transparency & Controls: 78
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 42
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 78%; rating input score 78
- Program expense ratio: 81.8%; rating input score 82
- Fundraising efficiency: $310.88 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 20th 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: 5%; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.5; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.14; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 4%; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 7.4% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 4.7% per year; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 2.6% per year; rating input score 100; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 78% of revenue deployed · 81.8% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 12 filed program accomplishments · $5.7M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $157K · 18 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 31 of 32 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, executive pay, and related organizations
- Filing history: 10 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 4 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: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 18/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 50/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 52/100.