Connecticut Parent Advocavy Center Incorporated

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
222539005
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
New London, CT, USA
Phone
8607393089
Rating
84
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Developmentally Disabled Centers

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,035,431
Expenses
$1,232,907
Assets
$625,433
Liabilities
$89,363

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CLAUDIA BOUCHARD (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • JANE HAMPTON-SMITH (COEXECUTIVE): $78,071 total reported compensation
  • BETH REEL (COEXECUTIVE): $77,947 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 organization provides wide ranging support for families whose children receive special education services or those who suspect their child may have a disability, and provides important advocacy to improve special education outcomes in the state of Connecticut. Services include one on one consultation for parents facing challenges navigating the special education system (in english, spanish, portuguese, creole, and other languages using a language line), mentoring and support for youth with disabilities, training sessions for families and professionals in the field of special education, and substantial consultation with state and local education professionals to improve special education systems in the state.

What it reported doing in 2024

Connecticut parent advocacy center, inc. (cpac) is a statewide nonprofit organization that offers information and support to families of children with any disability or chronic illness, from birth through age 26. Cpac knows that parents must be the most effective advocates for their children. We are committed to empower them and give them confidence that knowledge and understanding that special education law and its procedures can bring. Through outreach efforts and referrals from schools, social service agencies and other parents, the number of families that cpac serves has grown dramatically over the past 43 years. The organization continues to take pride in providing prompt and personal assisstance to all who contact them. Cpac is staffed by parents of children with disabilities who have trained in, and have personal experience with the law and disability issues.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 67% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program 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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 87
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 20
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 92.9%; rating input score 93
  • 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: 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: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: -19.1%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.51; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.14; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 12.7%; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 11% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9.3% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 13.6% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 92.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $78K · 13 people listed
  • Consistency: 28 of 29 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2013 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.
  • 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 10/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 24/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 29/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 37/100.