Child Care Law Center

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
942959973
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Berkeley, CA, USA
Phone
4155588005
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Child Day Care

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,907,134
Expenses
$1,759,505
Assets
$4,411,123
Liabilities
$57,054

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Kim Kruckel (Executive Director (end 6/24))

Highest reported compensation

  • Maisha Cole (Deputy Dir./Exec. Dir. (trans 6/24)): $175,457 total reported compensation
  • Laurie Furstenfeld (Legal Director): $141,525 total reported compensation
  • Deanne Bray (Director of Finance): $128,474 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The Child Care Law Center ("CCLC") educates, advocates, and litigates to make child care a civil right.

What it reported doing in 2024

Community education and outreach: CCLC gives families, child care providers, attorneys, and advocates specific information about child care-related legal topics, including children with disabilities, housing and zoning rights, and child care financial assistance. We conducted 50 workshops attended by approximately 3,000 people, answered 300 questions for information via email, and posted answers to 63 Frequently Asked Questions on our website. Our staff also participated in countless informal information sessions, stakeholder meetings, and community meetings so attendees could rely on legal expertise. CCLC includes landlords, city governments, and homeowner associations in our community education plan. Hence, they know the rules they must follow to promote and protect child care programs in their communities.CCLC educates community partners and advocates about racial justice and social justice and builds a racial equity lens into education and advocacy activities.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 66% 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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 47
  • Transparency & Controls: 74
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 75
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 31.9%; rating input score 32
  • Program expense ratio: 67.2%; rating input score 67
  • Fundraising efficiency: $23.25 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 55%; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.51; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 30.3%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 12.2% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 19% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 26.1% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 31.9% of revenue deployed · 67.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $1.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $175K · 15 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 28 of 28 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2014 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 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.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 32/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 5/100.