Children's Advocacy Center Nepa
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 232972024
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2016–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2021
- Location
- Scranton, PA, USA
- Phone
- 5709697313
- Rating
- 75
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Child Abuse, Prevention
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,612,392
- Expenses
- $1,348,867
- Assets
- $2,410,082
- Liabilities
- $70,376
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
14 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- JUDGE MICHAEL J BARRASSE (PRESIDENT)
- MEGHAN GAGORIK (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- MEGHAN GAGORIK (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $97,932 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 children's advocacy center of northeastern Pennsylvania is a private, non-profit, charitable organization whose mission is to provide excellence in the assessment and treatment of child abuse and neglect.
What it reported doing in 2024
The children's advocacy center of northeastern Pennsylvania ("cacnepa") provides medical assessments and child forensic interviews for victims of abuse and neglect and coordinates a multi-disciplinary team response to child abuse and neglect in lackawanna and surrounding counties of northeastern Pennsylvania. Cacnepa provides child abuse prevention education to professionals and communities served.cacnepa is driven by a multi-disciplinary investigative team (mdit) consisting of professionals from cacnepa, the district attorney's office, children and youth services (cps), law enforcement, and mental health personnel. Cases are reviewed by the mdit on a monthly basis.since 1998, cacnepa has grown its child-abuse intervention team. Presently, the team consists of three medical personnel including a board certified physician, a crnp/sane-a/sane-p (sexual abuse nurse examiner) and an rn, two child forensic interviewers including the program manager, a child/family victim advocate, three trauma counselors, two community & school educators, and three administrative personnel including the executive director, office manager, and fundraising and event coordinator.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- 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.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
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: 52
- Transparency & Controls: 86
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 64
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 51.5%; rating input score 51
- Program expense ratio: 63.2%; rating input score 63
- Fundraising efficiency: $6.56 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 22nd 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; 63rd 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: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 16.3%; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.79; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 7.3%; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 3% per year; rating input score 100; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 7.6% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 1.7% per year; rating input score 100; 24th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 51.5% of revenue deployed · 63.2% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $852K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $98K · 14 people listed
- Consistency: 31 of 32 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
- Filing history: 9 filing years from 2016 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
- 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 51/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 25/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 46/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 58/100.