Early Learning Coalition of Hillsborough County
Legal name: Hillsborough County School Readiness Coalition Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 593626765
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2012–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Tampa, FL, US
- Phone
- (813) 515-2340
- Rating
- 78
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Alliance/Advocacy Organizations
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $127,649,758
- Expenses
- $127,417,498
- Assets
- $20,886,092
- Liabilities
- $15,561,507
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
28 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- DR FREDERICK HICKS (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)
Highest reported compensation
- DR FREDERICK HICKS (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER): $216,511 total reported compensation
- GARY MEYER (FORMER CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER): $157,986 total reported compensation
- RICARDO RAMPERSAD (CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER): $144,267 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 prepare every child for kindergarten and build the foundation for their educational success.
What it reported doing in 2024
The school readiness match program provides funds to expand the provision of services to low-income families at or below 70% of state median income. Funding is subject to availability. Local matching funds can be derived from government, employer charitable foundations, and other sources to expand funds for direct services and increase the number of childcare slots.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Grant-funded. 98% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 89% of its reported program spending out as grants.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 86
- Transparency & Controls: 61
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 29
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 97%; rating input score 97
- Program expense ratio: 97.2%; rating input score 97
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 28th 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: 0.1%; rating input score 0; 6th 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; 77th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 0.2%; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.16; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.75; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0.5%; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 8.8% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 8.3% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 4.9% per year; rating input score 100; 36th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 7 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 97% of revenue deployed · 97.2% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 24 of 24 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $123.8M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $217K · 28 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $13.2M reported
- Consistency: 34 of 35 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 13 filing years from 2012 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
- 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.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 32/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 5/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 20/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.