Community Coordinated Care for Children, Inc. (4C)
Legal name: Community Coordinated Care for Children Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 591371754
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2025
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025
- Location
- Orlando, FL, US
- Phone
- 407-522-2252
- Rating
- 85
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Child Day Care
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $28,586,887
- Expenses
- $28,519,991
- Assets
- $9,652,292
- Liabilities
- $5,498,336
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
19 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- PATRICIA E FRANK (PRESIDENT/CE)
Highest reported compensation
- PATRICIA E FRANK (PRESIDENT/CE): $190,720 total reported compensation
- DEBORA WILSON (CHIEF PROGRA): $148,493 total reported compensation
- CINDY HARVEY METZ (EMPLOYEE): $131,492 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
4C’s mission is to be a community leader in providing high-quality services that improve the lives of children and families.
What it reported doing in 2025
Child care food program (ccfp) is a federally funded and regulated by the u.s. Department of agriculture (usda). In Florida, the department of health bureau of child care programs administers the program. Child care centers, head start sites, and licensed family child care home providers are eligible to participate. Centers with a current religious accreditation certificate are also able to apply. The ccfp helps fight hunger and obesity by reimbursing eligible centers and home providers for serving healthy meals that meet the ccfp meal requirements to children in their care. Providers sponsored by 4c have access to nutrition resources, training, and technical assistance.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Grant-funded. 92% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 76% for direct work, and 24% for grants.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 84
- Transparency & Controls: 83
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 25
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 95%; rating input score 95
- Program expense ratio: 95.2%; rating input score 95
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
- Compensation committee: Pass
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Pass
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: 0.2%; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.34; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.57; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 2.9%; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 2.7% per year; rating input score 100; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 0.1% per year; rating input score 100; 6th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 2.6% per year; rating input score 100; 17th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 5 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 2 operating locations identified
- Where the money goes: 95% of revenue deployed · 95.2% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $27.1M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $191K · 19 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $2.5M reported
- Consistency: 31 of 31 current checks pass
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
- 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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 25/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 7/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 21/100.