Care Lab

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
862195500
IRS 990 coverage
2022–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2021
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2025496566
Rating
56
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Public, Society Benefit N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$750,093
Expenses
$522,420
Assets
$215,053
Liabilities
$-3,381

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Sarah Stephens (Executive Director)
  • Sarah Stephens (President)
  • B Justine Williams (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Sarah Stephens (Executive Director): $195,188 total reported compensation
  • B Justine Williams (Managing Director): $105,584 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Care Lab brings leaders together to build the skills and trust that are necessary to better care for each other, our communities, and the country. On Capitol Hill, Care Lab leverages decades of international experience; bridge-building work; and scientific research to support a large, bipartisan network of senior Senate staff dedicated to building meaningful relationships, breaking down partisan divides, and developing skills for navigating conflict, difference, and the stress of rapid national and institutional change. Through partnerships with in-state and community partners, we move beyond partisan divides to build trust and lines-of-site between Congress and local community members.

What it reported doing in 2024

Senate Network: Planned, ran, and evaluated two New Cohorts of Three Dinners; Carried out a "201" Series; Held two all-cohorts events; launched an alumni network; Developed and Planned a Trip to New Mexico; and conducted a strategic planning process

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% 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

MIXED - A large share of total spending goes to programs and program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and a relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 66
  • Transparency & Controls: 59
  • Accountability: 21
  • Sustainability: 45
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 53.7%; rating input score 54
  • Program expense ratio: 77.1%; rating input score 77
  • Fundraising efficiency: $463.02 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 30.4%; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.41; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 57.6%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 21.3% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 48.2% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 71.6% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 53.7% of revenue deployed · 77.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 10 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $403K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $195K · 12 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 23 of 24 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2022 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • 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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 54/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 19/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 1/100.