Scotland County Partnership for Children and Families Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
562094816
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Laurinburg, NC, USA
Phone
9102763333
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Alliance/Advocacy Organizations

Reported finances

Revenue
$477,780
Expenses
$460,517
Assets
$70,572
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • BENNY COX (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • BENNY COX (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $107,987 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 children for success by providing resources to families and the community

What it reported doing in 2024

Child care and education quality - the partnership worked with more than 20 public and private agencies to implement programs to improve the lives of scotland county's children and families. Over 78 volunteer hours were donated by community members to the partnership and its programs. 38 child care providers received educational incentives for completing college credit semester hours towards an early childhood education degree. The number of child care teachers with an associates or bachelors degree in early childhood education has grown more than 10 times since 2001. Over 176 children have been impacted by smart start efforts to maintain the quality of their early childhood environment. Since 2002, the partnership has helped to raise the median wage of a child care provider with an associates degree from $6.41 to $10.25. Since 2001, scotland county's child care centers offering sick leave benefits to their employees increased from 39% to 75%. 90% of scotland county's child care facilities have a license of 3 or more stars.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 90% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 80% for direct work, and 20% for grants.

The verdict

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

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 62
  • Transparency & Controls: 93
  • Accountability: 60
  • Sustainability: 37
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 69.2%; rating input score 69
  • Program expense ratio: 71.7%; rating input score 72
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 50%; rating input score 50; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: 3.6%; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.15; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 23.4%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -2.9% per year; rating input score 0; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -0.7% per year; rating input score 0; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 25.7% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 69.2% of revenue deployed · 71.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 14 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $330K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $108K · 15 people listed
  • Consistency: 22 of 22 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2018 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.

  • Review — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 50/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 9/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 48/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 16/100.