I Jerome and Rosemary Flance Early Childhood Center

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
461494955
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2021
Forms available
Form 990 2021, Form 990-N 2013
Location
Saint Louis, MO, USA
Phone
3143352982
Rating
66
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Kindergarten, Preschool, Nursery School, Early Admissions

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,190,559
Expenses
$346,003
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2021. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LAUREL TINSLEY (PRESIDENT/DIRECTOR)
  • MARLENE HODGES (VICE PRESIDENT/DIRECTOR)

People named in this filing

  • LAUREL TINSLEY (PRESIDENT/DIRECTOR)
  • MARLENE HODGES (VICE PRESIDENT/DIRECTOR)
  • SAL MARTINEZ (SECRETARY/DIRECTOR)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2021. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The center was organized exclusively for charitable, educational, and scientific purposes within the meaning of section 501(c)(3) of the internal revenue code of 1986, as amended, including, for such purposes, the making of distributions to organizations that qualify as exempt organizations under section 501(a) of the code by reason of description in section 501(c)(3) of the code. The center opened its doors for students in june 2014. The center operated on a mixed-income model, with 100 slots reserved for low-income and very-low income families, and the remaining slots open to families of any income level. Many of the families were subsidized through head start, early head start and other scholarship funds.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 98% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 59% for direct work, and 41% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 41
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 57
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 15.4%; rating input score 15
  • Program expense ratio: 97.8%; rating input score 98
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: No; rating input score 0

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 84.2%; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -12% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 17.5% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -12% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 15.4% of revenue deployed · 97.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $338K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 18 of 19 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2014 to 2021
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 15/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.