Advokids

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
943157218
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Corte Madera, CA, USA
Phone
4159240587
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,037,060
Expenses
$852,246
Assets
$766,255
Liabilities
$14,462

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Karen Wright (President)
  • Cheick Diarra (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Margaret Coyne (E.D. & Director): $85,000 total reported compensation
  • Janet Sherwood (Secretary): $14,550 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Protecting and promoting the right of every child in foster care in California to safety, security and a permanent home. Teaching others how to advocate for safety, security, and permanency for children in foster care.

What it reported doing in 2025

Other program activities (continued from form 990 page 2): statewide child welfare reform------------------------------advokids' telephone helpline and legal trainings throughout the state inform ourimpact litigation, legislative proposals, and policy work. The data that we gatherand analyze from our constituents in California counties allows us to identifytrends and systemic problems at the state and local levels and propose solutions andpro-active reform on behalf of all children in foster care.appellate and amicus project----------------------------advokids' staff attorneys and pro bono attorneys provide assistance in preparingappellate briefs and amicus curiae (friend-of-the-court) briefs in selected caseswhere our legal staff has identified a question of law that is critical toprotecting the health, safety or well-being of children in foster care incalifornia. Appeals and amicus briefs provide important safeguards for childrenunder the jurisdiction of the juvenile court and serve as powerful catalysts forsystemic change.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 92% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 57
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 54
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 58%; rating input score 58
  • Program expense ratio: 70.1%; rating input score 70
  • Fundraising efficiency: $5.04 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: 17.8%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.9; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 11.7%; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6.4% per year; rating input score 100; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.8% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 12.7% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 58% of revenue deployed · 70.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $597K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $85K · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 29 of 29 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2014 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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.
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 58/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 16/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 40/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 33/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 54/100.