Children's Advocacy Center of Suffolk County Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 043273300
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Boston, MA, USA
- Phone
- 6177792146
- Rating
- 69
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Child Abuse, Prevention
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $3,829,945
- Expenses
- $2,237,690
- Assets
- $5,335,992
- Liabilities
- $176,625
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
17 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- ANNIE MARCKLINGER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- ANNIE MARCKLINGER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $190,510 total reported compensation
- KIMBERLY SEBASTIAO (CHIEF DEVELOPMENT OFFICER): $133,531 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To unite public, private and community partners to ensure safety, healing and justice for children and families impacted by violence, exploitation and abuse.
What it reported doing in 2024
The children's advocacy center of suffolk county unites public, private and community partners to promote safety, healing and justice for children exposed to violence and their families. Each year in suffolk county, more than 1,600 young victims of sexual abuse, physical abuse and commercial sexual exploitation are referred to the cac for support and assistance. The only program of its kind in suffolk county, the cac coordinates the efforts of child protection, law enforcement, prosecutors, advocates, medical experts and trauma clinicians under one roof to provide high quality, specialized services for abused children and their families. The cac's child-friendly, trauma-informed program is based in boston, co-located with partner agencies. The cac is a fully accredited member of the national children's alliance.the cac's team of compassionate experts works together with partners to focus on what matters most: safety and healing.multi-disciplinary teams: the multi-disciplinary team ("mdt") is the heart of the cac's response to allegations of child abuse. The goal of the mdt is to quickly respond to concerns of child abuse and to determine the best response for the child and family.forensic interviewing: forensic interviews provide children a safe place to tell their story to experts who will listen to them, protect them, and help them heal. The electronically-recorded interview typically involves a child speaking with a forensic interviewer while team members observe the interview through a one-way mirror.mental health program: the cac's mental health program provides advocacy, support, and evidence-based trauma services to child victims of abuse and their caregivers. To further support children and families, the team includes a family resource specialist and family advocates. The family resource specialist provides assistance in accessing needed housing, employment, financial, food and other essential resources. The family advocates offer education, assessments, support, advocacy and referrals for necessary services. This support is needed more than ever.medical services: the children's advocacy center of suffolk county, provides specialized and trauma-informed medical care for children who have experienced abuse or exploitation. Medical services are provided by a pediatric sexual assault nurse examiner ("pedi-sane") at no cost to children and families.seen/child trafficking response: the support to end exploitation now program ("seen" program) at the cac provides expert case coordination and training to create a safety net for high risk and exploited youth.outreach and training: the cac's outreach & training program provides education and resources to professionals, community members and youth. Demand for training has increased dramatically with growing demand for training regarding online safety and supporting youth who are impacted by online exploitation. The cac training team includes a training program manager and community outreach coordinator to help meet this demand.data & evaluation: the cac hired its first data analyst in 2022 to enhance the cac's data collection, evaluation and case tracking with the goals of ensuring high quality service delivery and conducting program evaluation to better measure impact.
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.
- 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: 46
- Transparency & Controls: 74
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 73
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 36.7%; rating input score 37
- Program expense ratio: 62.8%; rating input score 63
- Fundraising efficiency: $10.58 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 39; 39th 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: Pass
- 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 9 of 9 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: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 41.6%; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.38; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 14.5%; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 13.6% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 15% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 13.7% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 36.7% of revenue deployed · 62.8% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.4M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $191K · 17 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 33 of 33 current checks pass
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
- Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 2 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.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 37/100.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 39/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 20/100.