Children's Specialty Care Coalition

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
680484332
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Sacramento, CA, USA
Phone
9164437086
Rating
50
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Chambers of Commerce & Business Leagues

Reported finances

Revenue
$629,299
Expenses
$665,512
Assets
$980,943
Liabilities
$161,049

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

Leadership & pay

17 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JAMES STEIN MD (PRESIDENT)
  • CRAIG SWANSON MD (VICE PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • JAMES STEIN MD (PRESIDENT)
  • CRAIG SWANSON MD (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • SUSAN GAGE MD (SECRETARY)

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

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

Overview

Mission

To ensure that children with complex health care needs have access to timely and high quality medical care, and that pediatric specialists are able to thrive in californias health care

What it reported doing in 2024

(a) to educate the public-decision makers about the importance of ensuring appropriate, high quality health care for all children with special health care needs (b) to provide and exchange information of new developments and pending legislation in the areas of financing and the provision of pediatric health care programs for children with special health care needs (c) to increase awareness amoung state and local decision-makers of the threat to the health of all children in California with severe and chronic diseases because of the declining availability and access to pediatric specialists (d) to collaborate with state legislative and executive leadership in strengthening the California childrens services program (e) to serve as the collective voice of all pediatric specialists in California

Operating model

Revenue model
Membership-supported. 91% of the money available for current operations came from membership dues.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

MIXED - 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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 41
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -5.8%; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.47; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.16; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -32.4% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.6% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.5% per year; rating input score 100; 41st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 16 of 16 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 17 people listed
  • Consistency: 11 of 23 current checks pass · 12 findings to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2013 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 23/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Advertising column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX ConferencesMeetings column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesAccounting column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesInvstMgmntFees column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesLobbying column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesManagement column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesOther column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX InformationTechnology column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Insurance column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX OfficeExpenses column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Travel column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 55/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 35/100.