Share |

Center for Collaborative Education Metro Boston, Inc.

 33 Harrison Avenue, 6th Floor
 Boston, MA 02111
[P] (617) 421-0134
[F] (617) 421-9016
Emily Sienkiewicz
Facebook Twitter
 Printable Profile (Summary / Full)
EIN 04-3241676

LAST UPDATED: 12/20/2018
Organization DBA Center for Collaborative Education
Former Names --
Organization received a competitive grant from the Boston Foundation in the past five years Yes



Mission StatementMORE »

The mission of the Center for Collaborative Education (CCE) is to transform schools to ensure that all students succeed. We believe that schools should prepare every student to achieve academically and make a positive contribution to a democratic society. To achieve a vision of a world where every student is college- and career-ready and prepared to become a compassionate, contributing global citizen, CCE works at the school, district and state levels in New England and beyond to:

  • Create learning environments that are collaborative, democratic and equitable;
  • Build capacity within districts and schools to adopt new practices that promote collaborative, democratic and equitable learning for students and educators; and
  • Catalyze systemic change at the school and district levels through district- and state-level policy and advocacy support

Mission Statement

The mission of the Center for Collaborative Education (CCE) is to transform schools to ensure that all students succeed. We believe that schools should prepare every student to achieve academically and make a positive contribution to a democratic society. To achieve a vision of a world where every student is college- and career-ready and prepared to become a compassionate, contributing global citizen, CCE works at the school, district and state levels in New England and beyond to:

  • Create learning environments that are collaborative, democratic and equitable;
  • Build capacity within districts and schools to adopt new practices that promote collaborative, democratic and equitable learning for students and educators; and
  • Catalyze systemic change at the school and district levels through district- and state-level policy and advocacy support

FinancialsMORE »

Fiscal Year July 01, 2018 to June 30, 2019
Projected Income $4,447,300.00
Projected Expense $4,499,000.00

ProgramsMORE »

  • Boston Pilot/Horace Mann/Innovation Schools Network
  • MA Personalized Learning Network
  • Massachusetts Consortium for Innovative Education Assessment
  • Quality Performance Assessments

Revenue vs. Expense ($000s)

Expense Breakdown 2017 (%)

Expense Breakdown 2016 (%)

Expense Breakdown 2015 (%)

For more details regarding the organization's financial information, select the financial tab and review available comments.


Mission Statement

The mission of the Center for Collaborative Education (CCE) is to transform schools to ensure that all students succeed. We believe that schools should prepare every student to achieve academically and make a positive contribution to a democratic society. To achieve a vision of a world where every student is college- and career-ready and prepared to become a compassionate, contributing global citizen, CCE works at the school, district and state levels in New England and beyond to:

  • Create learning environments that are collaborative, democratic and equitable;
  • Build capacity within districts and schools to adopt new practices that promote collaborative, democratic and equitable learning for students and educators; and
  • Catalyze systemic change at the school and district levels through district- and state-level policy and advocacy support

Background Statement

The Center for Collaborative Education (CCE) was founded in September 1994, with the purpose “to provide technical assistance to schools that are interested in restructuring and implementing creative new educational models to improve student learning.” CCE has grown to an annual budget of about $5 million with a staff  of 29. CCE’s board of directors has ranged from 12-16 members, with members from K-12 public education, higher education, business, community, and philanthropic sectors.

Our staff is fueled by a passion to attain educational equity*—the creation of belief systems and educational policies, practices, and programs, necessary to:

· Provide barrier-free cultures for any student group, particularly students within historically underserved groups, in which respect and dialogue are the norm

· Provide equitable educational opportunities along with differentiated support and resources to ensure that every student, in all subgroups, demonstrates competency over rigorous standards for academic performance

We strive to contribute to planned, systemic strategies that focus on the core of the teaching and learning process (curriculum, instruction, assessment, and culture). We believe that equity encompasses an ongoing process of examination of data, inquiry, action, and reflection. We aspire to be, and develop, leaders who communicate and act upon an equity belief system to create equity-driven schools.

* Adapted from “Educational Equity Defined” by Barbara Bitters

Impact Statement

Through our four strategic program areas (District & School Design, Quality Performance Assessment, Leadership Development, and Research, Evaluation & Policy), CCE drives our mission forward with a number of student-centered initiatives nationwide. Here's just a sample of the ways we're making an impact in our communities:

· We're supporting Massachusetts educators through the Essex County Learning Community, providing professional learning focused on creating equitable learning opportunities for students with learning differences.

· We're engaging with the MA state legislature and school districts and teachers across the state to move the Massachusetts Consortium for Innovative Education Assessment forward in the hopes of providing engaging, more equitable alternatives to standardized tests.

· We're working with the New Hampshire Department of Education to bring Quality Performance Assessments to New Hampshire in place of standardized tests.

· We're giving future teachers and administrators the tools they need to close the achievement gap in Los Angeles public schools and improve student achievement and instructional quality with the Los Angeles Urban Teachers Residency and Los Angeles New Administrators Program.

· We conduct research to inform the work of educators, policy makers, and our communities in our ongoing effort to address achievement gaps and catalyze change. We publish our findings on CCE's Publications page (

Needs Statement

1) Funds to support the growth of the Massachusetts Consortium for Innovative Education Assessment (MCIEA) in developing and piloting a new accountability model in Massachusetts that offers a more dynamic picture of student learning and school quality than a single standardized test. MCIEA is creating (1) a School Quality Data Dashboard that provides multiple data points across multiple categories of school quality and (2) a performance assessment system within and across each of the seven member districts

2) Funds to develop a Student-Centered Learning School Design Toolkit, a professional development tool and resource for teachers and leaders seeking to adopt student-centered learning models in their schools. The guide will provide a strategic approach toward achieving equity through personalized, student-centered learning practices, including tools, frameworks, and protocols toward this end.

3) Funds to design and carry out rigorous research and evaluation studies using quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods on topics, including Black and Latino youth, English Language Learners; performance assessment; and student-centered learning. This research will inform the work of educators, policy makers and other stakeholders.

CEO Statement

We live in a country rife with institutional inequities that create language, income, race, gender, able-ness, and sexual identity divides that make it extremely difficult for young people to gain traction to follow their dreams and aspirations. It starts with education. A 2017 national survey confirmed a glaring disparity between the beliefs of White adults and those of African-American, Latino, and Native American adults about equitable access to quality public education for their children. Sixty-four percent of African-Americans, 45% of Latinos, and 40% of Native Americans agreed that “children of their own group don’t have the same chances for a quality education as White children,” whereas only 12% of White respondents felt their children didn’t have similar opportunities to children of color.

So what can we do to uphold and honor the aspirations of our low-income, Black, Latino, and English learner students so that they do not become, in the words of Langston Hughes, “dreams deferred”? At the Center for Collaborative Education, we commit to working with partner schools, districts, and states to:

· Examine and dismantle institutional systems and policies that perpetuate inequities – such as tracking, use of standardized tests as the single determinant of a student’s learning or school’s quality, punitive discipline policies, and restricted access to high-level learning opportunities.

· Research, identify, and put in place the K-12 practices, policies, and systems that promote college-going and college persistence among student groups that have been historically denied college success, while partnering with higher education institutions to provide the supports and scaffolding needed for historically underserved students to be successful

· Promote places of learning that empower students and give them agency to follow their passions along multiple pathways to graduation, while providing them with opportunities to engage in learning outside the school walls

· Create accountability systems in which assessment is placed in the hands of teachers where it belongs, with curriculum-embedded performance assessments requiring students to demonstrate what they know and are able to do in ways they will be asked to in adult life, and in which school ratings and leveling are eliminated in favor of multiple data about the varied aspects of school quality that can be used by the community in reflection and improvement

Board Chair Statement

Geographic Area Served

City of Boston- Citywide (Indiv. neighborhoods also listed)

CCE serves primarily New England public school districts, with an emphasis on urban districts and in particular Boston. We have worked with most of the state’s urban public school districts over time. Our work has expanded nationally, with partnerships with state agencies and districts in New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, Minnesota, Oregon, Georgia, and Kentucky. CCE also has a satellite office in Los Angeles, CA that operates an urban teacher residency program and a New Administrator Licensure Program.

Organization Categories

  1. Education - Elementary & Secondary Schools
  2. -
  3. -

Independent research has been conducted on this organization's theory of change or on the effectiveness of this organization's program(s)



Boston Pilot/Horace Mann/Innovation Schools Network

Boston’s Pilot schools are the result of an innovative teachers’ union and school district contract which grants these public schools control over budget, staffing, curriculum, governance, and schedule. In recent years, Boston Pilot schools have been joined by Horace Mann charter and Innovation schools, two additional models that grant schools increased autonomy and control over decision making.


Demonstrating their appeal to families, Boston’s autonomous schools have multiplied while the district’s enrollment has dropped in recent years. Pilot, Horace Mann, and Innovation schools are among the most chosen schools of any district schools.


The Pilot/Horace Mann/Innovation Schools Network is a voluntary network coordinated by CCE, which provides these schools with coaching, leadership development, professional development, advocacy, community engagement, and research. Pilot leaders and staff view the Network and CCE as a critical support to their sustained vitality.
Budget  $500,000.00
Category  Education, General/Other Elementary & Secondary Education
Population Served Adults K-12 (5-19 years)
Program Short-Term Success 
By the end of FY 2013:
  • Two additional Pilot, Horace Mann, or Innovation schools will have been approved for start-up
  • A new district accountability plan for autonomous schools will have been approved and put in place
  • A choice study will be underway to determine the level of popularity of Pilot, Horace Mann, and Innovation schools with parents and students
  • An analysis of Pilot, Horace Mann, and Innovation school outcomes will be underway to determine the impact of these schools on student engagement and achievement.
Program Long-Term Success 
Our goal is to accomplish the following:
  • Support the increase of Pilot, Innovation, and Horace Mann charter schools to 35 (from 25)
  • Assist the district to develop and implement an accountability system for these autonomous schools that ensures high performance
  • All BPS autonomous schools will perform above the district average in state standardized tests, attendance, graduation, and college-going rates
  • BPS autonomous schools will be among the highest chosen schools in the district
Program Success Monitored By 
We will know what is working by:
  • The increase in number of BPS autonomous schools
  • Changes in MCAS test scores, attendance, suspensions, graduation, college-going, and dropout rates
  • Surveys of autonomous school leaders of CCE's impact in assisting the school
Examples of Program Success 
Examples of program success include the following:
  • BPS autonomous schools are the highest selected non-examination schools
  • The significant majority of autonomous schools perform above the BPS average on multiple indicators of student engagement and achievement

MA Personalized Learning Network

The Massachusetts Personalized Learning Network (PLN) seeks to create a critical mass of equity-minded schools that exemplify personalized, competency-based, and engaged learning. Over the next two years, CCE will support PLN's eight Cohort 1 and 2 schools to transition from planning to early implementation. Six schools from five districts (Boston, Framingham, Rever, Somerville, and Holyoke) are on track to implement in September 2017. CCE will select six additional schools annually in Cohorts 3 and 4 from current and newly recruited PLN districts. PLN will be a platform to build understanding of and advocate for personalized learning and supportive policies statewide. PLN’s work is guided by our five principles of personalized learning for equity and excellence:

Competency-based Learning

Student-Driven Learning

Authentic Learning

Flexible Learning

Dispositions for Learning

Budget  $2,000,000.00
Category  Education, General/Other Education Policy Programs
Population Served Children and Youth (0 - 19 years)
Program Short-Term Success 
CCE seeks to demonstrate that personalized learning is the best means to educate the full diversity of students in Massachusetts' urban districts and will have greater success in closing equity gaps in opportunity and achievement. We have set target outcomes for each PLN school that place them in the top quartile of schools in the state in the following areas:
Engagement: High attendance; low suspensions
Achievement: Percent of students who score proficient or advanced on the state ELA, math, and science assessment tests; Student Growth Percentile on state tests
College and Career Ready: Percent of students who complete a MassCore curriculum sequence; percent of graduates enrolled in postsecondary education the year after graduation
We also set the following additional outcomes:
Student Engagement: At least 90% of students feel safe at school, engaged in learning, and have a sense of agency and perseverance
Equity: Gaps among subgroups, in the percent of students scoring advanced/proficient on state assessment tests, has decreased from the prior year in the categories of income, race, language, and special needs.
Program Long-Term Success 
We aspire to have the MA Personalized Learning Network contribute to new school designs in Boston and Greater Boston urban districts that enable our diverse students to excel, including increased college enrollment and retention. Our theory of action:
If we build a Massachusetts Personalized Learning Network that:
(a) holds firm to the PL Principles,
(b) selects successive cohorts of PL districts and schools through a rigorous process,
(c) provides PL districts and schools with design assistance and grants,
(d) leverages supportive PL policies and funding at the district and state levels, and
(e) engages policymakers, educators and public in the value and power of PL,
Then we will build a statewide movement for PL schools and a network of PL schools in Boston and other MA urban districts with high outcomes that prepares all students for success in college and career.
Program Success Monitored By 

We will continue to conduct formative evaluation for all new cohorts of PLN schools that are in the planning phase, with the goal of gathering data that informs the continued development of the model. Data will be collected through pre- and post-Design Institute surveys, exit slips from each institute session, and examination of artifacts.

For schools in the early implementation phase, a summative evaluation will address the following questions: How and to what extent has teacher practice related to PLN principles changed over time in approved PLN schools? How are students in approved PLN schools performing on key indicators over time? What has been the impact of PLN efforts on district and state policy? We will use annual survey data, traditional student engagement and achievement indicators, focus groups, and various artifacts to help answer these questions.

Examples of Program Success 

Early evidence points to the impact that PLN is already having on network schools. At TechBoston Academy in Boston, their new Teach to One math program is being implemented in grades 6-8. This is a blended learning platform that allows students to move through math concepts at the pace that is best for them. It incorporates collaborative projects and performance assessments to provide multiple means of representation, expression, and engagement. Teach to One also allows teachers to maximize flexible grouping by using the previous day's data to place students in skill-based groups for direct instruction and support.

At Holmes Elementary School in Boston, teachers are piloting blended learning through the Cortex Learning Management Platform. Grade two teachers are using playlists to implement Competency-Based Education with students in math. Holmes is also training all their educators in Brain Games which is designed to assist students with executive functioning and impulse control.

Massachusetts Consortium for Innovative Education Assessment

Formed in January 2016, the Massachusetts Consortium for Innovative Education Assessment (MCIEA) is a partnership of 7public school districts and their teacher unions (Attleboro, Boston, Lowell, Milford, Revere, Somerville, and Winchester), representing over 90,000 students (~10% of the state’s students). MCIEA is building a new accountability system that offers fair, authentic measures of student learning and school quality that promote the deeper learning that we aspire every student, and in particular historically underserved students, to have.

At the classroom and school levels, MCIEA is growing teacher and school leader capacity to design and implement curriculum-embedded performance assessments that provide authentic, culturally-responsive ways to measure student learning. At the school and district levels, MCIEA is creating a School Quality Measures data dashboard in 5categories (School Culture, Citizenship & Wellness, Resources, Teachers & Leadership, and Academic Learning) that offer a range of data that accurately reflects the school experience to use in making decisions that support student success. CCE coordinates MCIEA and provides technical assistance.

Budget  --
Category  Education, General/Other
Population Served Children and Youth (0 - 19 years)
Program Short-Term Success 

Between August 2018 and June 2019, CCE seeks to continue to build the MCIEA model, through activities including professional learning, data collection, and community engagement:

· Build performance assessment capacity of 150 teacher leaders in 30 MCIEA schools through CCE’s Quality Performance Assessment four-day, year-long institute, which trains teachers in the design cycle of creating, validating, and administering rich, valid performance assessments and scoring student work reliably

· Provide school-based coaching to support teacher leader teams in building faculty-wide capacity in the performance assessment design cycle and building a school-wide performance assessment system that spans all grades and disciplines

· Create cross-district teacher teams to design “common” performance assessments that can be embedded in local curricula across all districts and schools to ensure comparability in scoring

· Engage in School Quality Measures (SQM) data collection in the spring, including teacher and student perception surveys and selected state and district administrative data

· Load SQM data on the MCIEA web-based dashboard to provide easy-to-access data that better visualizes individual schools’ performance across all framework categories, and within subgroups across race, income, language, and disability

· Support district leadership and school teams in SQM data analysis and reflection process focused on school improvement

Program Long-Term Success 

In the long-term, MCIEA will build the skills and capacity of teachers at every district school (numbering 190) to design, implement, and score rigorous performance tasks across all grades and disciplines. At the school- and district-level, leadership will actively engage with and reflect on SQM data to inform school improvement efforts on a frequent basis. Through successful scaling of our model, MCIEA seeks to increase achievement for all students, close prevailing achievement gaps, and prepare a diversity of students for college, career, and life.

Program Success Monitored By  --
Examples of Program Success 
Between 2016 and 2018, 270 Teacher and School Leaders participated in a year of Quality Performance Assessment professional development, learning how to design valid and reliable performance assessments. Teacher leaders returned to their schools to build the capacity of colleagues school-wide to design and embed performance assessments in the curriculum. In total, 1400 teachers from 40 schools built their performance assessment skills and knowledge. 

MCIEA’s School Quality Measures dashboard was piloted in all consortium districts during the 2017-2018 school year using survey and administrative data from the 2016-2017 school year. User feedback on the dashboard was gathered iteratively, with initial reviews and recommendations made by a subcommittee of the Governing Board and subsequent focus groups and interviews conducted with teachers and principals. 

Quality Performance Assessments

Quality Performance Assessments is a comprehensive professional development model for working with districts and schools to create rich Common Core-aligned performance assessments that prepare students to be college and career-ready.The Common Core State Standards (Common Core) are “designed to be robust and relevant to the real world, reflecting the academic knowledge and skills that our young people need for success in college and careers” as well as participation in an increasingly global and multicultural world.These standards are better assessed with performance assessments than traditional tests.


CCE believes that high quality assessments, in which students engage inmulti-step assignments, transfer knowledge, and apply complex skills, produce deeper learning than can traditional assessments.CCE provides districts and schools with training and ongoing assistance in designing and implementing performance assessment systems to increase student achievement.

Budget  $475,000.00
Category  Education, General/Other Elementary & Secondary Education
Population Served Adults K-12 (5-19 years)
Program Short-Term Success 
Short-term success include:
  • Participating schools and districts will have adopted performance assessments for the core academic subjects
  • Student course pass rates in courses adopting performance assessments will have increased
Program Long-Term Success 
Long-term success includes participating districts and schools will have:
  • Districts and schools will have adopted promotion and graduation policies, and schedules with longer learning blocks for students and common planning time for teacher teams, to support quality performancce assessment systems
  • Schools and districts will have adopted a performance assessment system that applies to all students and drives student assessment
  • Students will have higher graduation, college-going, and college persistence rates
  • Performance gaps among student subgroups will have decreased
Program Success Monitored By 
Success will be monitored by:
  • MCAS scores
  • Course pass rates
  • Graduation, college-going, and college persistence rates
Examples of Program Success 

Fenway High School is a high school of 322 students within the Boston Public Schools. Ninety-two percent of students are of color; 36% speak a first language other than English, and 69% are low-income. During Senior Institute, students demonstrate their competencies through a set of performance assessments which include presenting a portfolio of work, participating in a six-week internship, completing the college application process, and writing a Senior Position Paper.The learning goals for the paper are aligned to the Common Core State Standards. Students must demonstrate that they can write persuasively, use appropriate voice, conduct relevant research, use citations, revise their work, and present and defend their paper. As one student commented, “You know that if you are graduating from this school that you have proved you have met the tough requirements.” Fenway has an 83% four-year graduation rate, well above the district’s 64% rate, and 95% of graduates go on to college.

CEO/Executive Director/Board Comments


CEO/Executive Director Dr. Dan French
CEO Term Start Mar 1997
CEO Email
CEO Experience

Dan French is currently the Executive Director of the Center for Collaborative Education, a non-profit organization dedicated to creating and supporting high performing urban public schools. CCE supports the development of small, autonomous schools which are provided maximum control over their resources and decision making while being expected to perform at high levels. CCE has helped to create and support over 65 Pilot schools across the country, and are partnering with the Massachusetts Executive Office of Education to spawn Innovation Schools across the state. CCE also operates two field-based principal credentialing programs, two teacher credentialing programs, and a project to assist districts and schools to create strong valid and reliable performance assessments. As well, CCE is assisting a number of Massachusetts districts to transform their underperforming schools, and is an approved state provider for assisting districts to design and implement the new state educator evaluation system.


Dr. French was formerly the Director of Instruction and Curriculum for the Massachusetts Department of Education, in which role he was responsible for the development of state curriculum frameworks, school reform networks, Title I, bilingual education, special education, school improvement plans, Metco, desegregation, community service learning, and technology education. Dr. French has been awarded the Manual Carballo Award for outstanding state service in public education, and the Edward Koskella Award from the Massachusetts Middle Level School Administrators Association for his work in improving middle grades education. He has authored numerous articles and publications on authentic assessment, middle grades education, and Pilot schools. Dr. French received a M.Ed. from Antioch University and an Ed.D. from the University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

Co-CEO --
Co-CEO Term Start --
Co-CEO Email --
Co-CEO Experience --

Former CEOs and Terms

Name Start End
-- -- --

Senior Staff

Name Title Experience/Biography
Dan French Executive Director --


Award Awarding Organization Year
-- -- --


Affiliation Year
-- --
Member of state association of nonprofits? No
Name of state association --

External Assessments and Accreditations

External Assessment or Accreditation Year
-- --


Since its founding in 1994, CCE has worked in partnership with schools, districts, government agencies, and education organizations to develop and deliver unique strategies, processes, and tools to improve educational systems and work towards better outcomes for all students. Currently, CCE partners with multiple agencies and school districts in New England and across the country. A full list of CCE's current partner can be found on our website at 

CEO/Executive Director/Board Comments

CCE takes pride in paying attention to its organizational culture. All of our professional staff are former school and district administrators and teacher leaders. We embrace a collaborative, team-based culture. Over the past ten years, we have had four different organizational culture surveys undertaken, each of which has resulted in governance strengthening, reorganization, committees to address gaps, and recommitment to teamwork, collaboration, relational trust, and communication.

Foundation Comments


Staff Information

Number of Full Time Staff 26
Number of Part Time Staff 3
Number of Volunteers 0
Number of Contract Staff 0
Staff Retention Rate % 90%

Staff Demographics

Ethnicity African American/Black: 7
Asian American/Pacific Islander: 1
Caucasian: 16
Hispanic/Latino: 3
Native American/American Indian: 0
Other: 2
Other (if specified): --
Gender Female: 24
Male: 5
Not Specified 0

Plans & Policies

Organization has Fundraising Plan? Under Development
Organization has Strategic Plan? Yes
Years Strategic Plan Considers 4
Management Succession Plan Under Development
Business Continuity of Operations Plan No
Organization Policies And Procedures Yes
Nondiscrimination Policy Yes
Whistle Blower Policy Yes
Document Destruction Policy Yes
Directors and Officers Insurance Policy Yes
State Charitable Solicitations Permit Yes
State Registration --

Risk Management Provisions


Reporting and Evaluations

Management Reports to Board? Yes
CEO Formal Evaluation and Frequency Yes Annually
Senior Management Formal Evaluation and Frequency Yes Semi-Annually
Non Management Formal Evaluation and Frequency Yes Semi-Annually


Board Chair Mr. Joesph Dello Russo
Board Chair Company Affiliation No Affiliation
Board Chair Term Sept 2016 -
Board Co-Chair --
Board Co-Chair Company Affiliation --
Board Co-Chair Term -

Board Members

Name Company Affiliations Status
Mr. Andres Alonso Harvard Graduate School of Education Voting
Mr. Herve Anoh Headmaster, Mary Lyon Pilot High School --
Ms. Rachel Bonkovsky Partnership for Los Angeles Schools Voting
Mr. R. Kelly Cameron MIT Center for Real Estate --
Mr. Richard Chang Upper Quincy High School, Boston --
Ms. Joan Connolly Retired Superintendent Voting
Mr. Jim Darr Retired Senior Executive Voting
Mr. Joe Dello Russo Retired Senior Executive Voting
Ms. Cathleen Finn IBM Voting
Mr. Florian Schalliol FSG --
Ms. Johanna Sullivan Nutter, McClennen & Fish --
Ms. Lizette Suxo Lesley University --
Ms. Naia Wilson New Mission High School Voting

Constituent Board Members

Name Company Affiliations Status
-- -- --

Youth Board Members

Name Company Affiliations Status
-- -- --

Advisory Board Members

Name Company Affiliations Status
-- -- --

Board Demographics

Ethnicity African American/Black: 2
Asian American/Pacific Islander: 1
Caucasian: 7
Hispanic/Latino: 2
Native American/American Indian: 0
Other: 0
Other (if specified): --
Gender Female: 8
Male: 7
Not Specified 0

Board Information

Board Term Lengths 0
Board Term Limits 0
Board Meeting Attendance % 63%
Written Board Selection Criteria Yes
Written Conflict Of Interest Policy Yes
Percentage of Monetary Contributions 100%
Percentage of In-Kind Contributions 56%
Constituency Includes Client Representation Yes

Standing Committees

  • Executive

CEO/Executive Director/Board Comments


Foundation Comments



Revenue vs. Expense ($000s)

Expense Breakdown 2017 (%)

Expense Breakdown 2016 (%)

Expense Breakdown 2015 (%)

Prior Three Years Total Revenue and Expense Totals

Fiscal Year 2017 2016 2015
Total Revenue $5,162,308 $3,826,432 $4,348,498
Total Expenses $4,699,075 $3,761,761 $4,205,481

Prior Three Years Revenue Sources

Fiscal Year 2017 2016 2015
Foundation and
Corporation Contributions
-- -- --
Government Contributions $0 $0 $0
    Federal -- -- --
    State -- -- --
    Local -- -- --
    Unspecified -- -- --
Individual Contributions $3,590,322 $3,187,338 $2,728,322
Indirect Public Support -- -- --
Earned Revenue $1,561,226 $625,262 $1,603,926
Investment Income, Net of Losses $399 $286 $726
Membership Dues -- -- --
Special Events -- -- --
Revenue In-Kind $5,000 $10,000 --
Other $5,361 $3,546 $15,524

Prior Three Years Expense Allocations

Fiscal Year 2017 2016 2015
Program Expense $3,997,411 $2,901,554 $3,532,170
Administration Expense $541,469 $706,570 $536,751
Fundraising Expense $160,195 $153,637 $136,560
Payments to Affiliates -- -- --
Total Revenue/Total Expenses 1.10 1.02 1.03
Program Expense/Total Expenses 85% 77% 84%
Fundraising Expense/Contributed Revenue 4% 5% 5%

Prior Three Years Assets and Liabilities

Fiscal Year 2017 2016 2015
Total Assets $4,030,183 $3,408,428 $3,352,880
Current Assets $3,871,602 $3,227,114 $3,142,199
Long-Term Liabilities -- $0 $0
Current Liabilities $1,826,360 $1,667,838 $1,676,961
Total Net Assets $2,203,823 $1,740,590 $1,675,919

Prior Three Years Top Three Funding Sources

Fiscal Year 2017 2016 2015
1st (Source and Amount) -- --
-- --
-- --
2nd (Source and Amount) -- --
-- --
-- --
3rd (Source and Amount) -- --
-- --
-- --

Financial Planning

Endowment Value --
Spending Policy Income plus capital appreciation
Percentage(If selected) --
Credit Line No
Reserve Fund Yes
How many months does reserve cover? 4.00

Capital Campaign

Are you currently in a Capital Campaign? No
Capital Campaign Purpose --
Campaign Goal --
Capital Campaign Dates -
Capital Campaign Raised-to-Date Amount --
Capital Campaign Anticipated in Next 5 Years? --

Short Term Solvency

Fiscal Year 2017 2016 2015
Current Ratio: Current Assets/Current Liabilities 2.12 1.93 1.87

Long Term Solvency

Fiscal Year 2017 2016 2015
Long-term Liabilities/Total Assets 0% 0% 0%

CEO/Executive Director/Board Comments

Since its inception in 1995, CCE has historically had clean audits and fiscal years that ended with a zero balance or with assets. We built a healthy reserve of approximately $1 million. During the economic downturn, we experienced three consecutive fiscal years ending with deficits, but were able to weather these years through dipping into our reserves (with board approval). The past several years, we have stabilized our budget and once again ended each fiscal year with assets, replenishing our reserves. Our goal is to reach the $1 million mark in reserves over the next 2-3 years.

Foundation Comments

Financial summary data in charts and graphs are per the organization's audited financials.  Contributions from foundations and corporations are listed under individuals when the breakout was not available.


The Impact tab is a section on the Giving Common added in October 2013; as such the majority of nonprofits have not yet had the chance to complete this voluntary section. The purpose of the Impact section is to ask five deceptively simple questions that require reflection and promote communication about what really matters – results. The goal is to encourage strategic thinking about how a nonprofit will achieve its goals. The following Impact questions are being completed by nonprofits slowly, thoughtfully and at the right time for their respective organizations to ensure the most accurate information possible.

1. What is your organization aiming to accomplish?


2. What are your strategies for making this happen?


3. What are your organization’s capabilities for doing this?


4. How will your organization know if you are making progress?


5. What have and haven’t you accomplished so far?