Black Californians United for Early Care and Education

What it reported doing in 2024

We launched the Institute for Culturally Affirming Practices for Black Children because we know the stakes are high. Black children in early care and education (ECE) settings continue to face systemic inequities and are often either rendered invisible through underrepresentation or hypervisible and misrepresented through deficit-based lenses, both of which undermine their brilliance Too often, quality measures and professional development frameworks ignore the reality that Black families and Black educators are stewards of brilliance, cultural capital, and ways of knowing that not only benefit Black children but all children. Our vision was clear: to create a professional learning space that centers Black culture, language, and history, and equips early educators and ECE professionals with deeper awareness and practical strategies while building a community of practice committed to affirming Black children every single day. We designed the Institute as a five-session professional development journey curated and led by experts within the BlackECE coalition. Grounded in Black joy, love for Black children, and the pursuit of justice for Black people, the Institute deepened participants' awareness and planted seeds for culturally affirming strategies that uplift Black children, families, and communities. Each session blended theory with actionable practice and was complemented by reflection circles that provided space for dialogue, peer-to-peer learning, and deeper meaning-making. Twenty-four educators and leaders joined this inaugural cohort, representing program administrators, center-based educators, and family child care providers. Participants represented diverse communities across California, from Los Angeles to the Central Valley to the Bay Area. Most brought more than a decade of experience in ECE, while others were earlier in their journey but deeply committed to change. Together, they built a community of practice that combined lived experience, professional expertise, and shared purpose with the intention of shaping early learning, teacher preparation, and ECE systems in ways that affirm Black children. At the conclusion of the Institute, participants shared their perspectives and confidence. The post-survey captured how experiences across the five sessions influenced their practice and intentions moving forward. Participants reported: Stronger confidence across all practice areas: 100% felt confident applying affirming approaches (up from 76%), 80% in engaging families (up from 55%), 90% in addressing bias (up from 85%), and 90% in affirming multilingual learners including Black Language (up from 62%). High intentions to act: 100% were likely to advocate for affirming practices, 90% to share knowledge with peers, 90% to implement affirming practices, and 70% to adjust teaching or engagement strategies. Based on insights from the pre-survey, questions about coaching and technical assistance were added to the post-survey to better understand participants' ongoing support needs. Results showed: Mixed interest in coaching and technical assistance: 20% said yes, 30% maybe, and 50% no. Still, 90% were at least somewhat likely to participate if BlackECE offered it, with preferences for curriculum planning support, small-group peer coaching, and hands-on guidance. Beyond the numbers, participants described the Institute as transformative. As one reflected, "It feels refreshing to be in a space where we can actually say the word racism and not avoid it, because these conditions are real in our daily lives." Others spoke of the sessions as "planting seeds" that would guide their decisions long after the Institute, and of the call to "prepare, not just protect" children by naming racism and affirming identity. Participants highlighted how affirming Black English as a legitimate language shifted their sense of professional responsibility, and how seeing children's names, language, and culture honored changed what quality meant for

Financial Efficiency

• Mission deployment rate: 12%; rating input score 12
• Program expense ratio: 15.3%; rating input score 15
• Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

• Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 5th percentile among comparable filings
• Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
  • Compensation committee: Missing
  • Independent consultant: Missing
  • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
  • Written employment contract: Missing
  • Compensation survey or study: Missing
  • Board or committee approval: Pass
• Foreign activity oversight: Limited
• Grant itemization coverage: Limited
• Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
• Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

• Independent voting board: 80%; rating input score 80; 18th percentile among comparable filings
• Governance controls: 2 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 22
  • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
  • Whistleblower policy: Fail
  • Document-retention policy: Fail
  • CEO compensation review process: Fail
  • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
  • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
  • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
  • Audit committee oversight: Missing
  • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

• Operating margin: 21.5%; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
• Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.88; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
• Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
• Officer compensation ratio: 35.7%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

• Program expense growth: 4.7% per year; rating input score 100; 41st percentile among comparable filings
• Revenue growth: 35.5% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings
• Asset growth: 29.9% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings