Child Abuse Prevention Center Political Action Committee

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
320345431
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2017–2024
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2024
Location
North Highlands, CA, USA
Phone
9162441982
Rating
61
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Government and Public Administration

Reported finances

Revenue
$27,800
Expenses
$65
Assets
$154,736
Liabilities
$2,618

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JANAY EUSTACE (PRESIDENT &)

People named in this filing

  • RACHEL MCKINNEY (CHAIRPERSON)
  • DEBBIE AUGUSTINE (CO-CHAIR)
  • TONY HARRIS (CO-CHAIR)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

The child abuse prevention center political action committee ("cap pac") engages in education and outreach to elected, appointed candidates, and policy officials regarding the risks and costs of child abuse and the strategies and cost benefits of preventing child abuse and neglect. Cap pac evaluates and endorses candidates and propositions in local and statewide elections. Cap pac also informs the field of child abuse prevention and family strengthening strategies, policies and potential legislation.

What it reported doing in 2024

Engaged in education and outreach to elected, appointed candidates, and policy officials regarding the risks and costs of child abuse and the strategies and cost benefits of preventing child abuse and neglect.

Operating model

Revenue model
Membership-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from membership dues.
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 program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and liabilities are high compared with assets.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 38
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 86
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0.2%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 99.8%; rating input score 100; 100th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2,380.55; rating input score 100; 100th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 10.2% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 31.5% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 27.6% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0.2% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $65 in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 12 people listed
  • Consistency: 8 of 8 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2017 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 27/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.
  • Review — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization could not be resolved against the register, so the check is unfinished.