Children's Institute
Legal name: Children's Institute of Los Angeles
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 451505136
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2012–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Los Angeles, CA, US
- Phone
- 424-536-4320
- Rating
- 70
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Neighborhood Centers
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $361,123
- Expenses
- $361,123
- Assets
- $20,385,588
- Liabilities
- $13,327,116
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
5 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- TAREK KUTRIEH (PRESIDENT)
- PAUL R KANIN (VICE PRESIDENT)
- ROBERT COWAN (VICE PRESIDENT - LEGAL COUSEL)
Highest reported compensation
- MARTINE SINGER (SECRETARY): $463,490 total reported compensation
- EUGENE D STRAUB (TREASURER): $387,482 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Children's Institute (CII) believes that all children and families have boundless potential to achieve emotional well-being and educational success, which build pathways to economic mobility and lifelong health.
What it reported doing in 2024
Children's institute of los angeles' mission is to support the charitable functions and the charitable activites of its supported organization, children's institute, inc. Children's institute, inc. Helps children who have been affected by abuse and violence. Children's institute of los angeles owns the building that children's institute resides in and all activities of the organization are related to providing the building to the institute for carrying out its charitable purpose.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Other-operating. 100% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
- 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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and program spending has declined or grown slowly.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 89
- Transparency & Controls: 60
- Accountability: 72
- Sustainability: 49
- Growth: 0
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 60%; rating input score 60; 17th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- 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: 0%; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 56.45; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.65; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 38.9%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -8.5% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -4.4% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -3.3% per year; rating input score 0; 14th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 6 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 3 of 5 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $361K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $463K · 5 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 14 of 14 current checks pass
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay
- Filing history: 13 filing years from 2012 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
- Related organizations: 2 filed related-organization links
- 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 39/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 7/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 8/100.