Macomb County Child Advocacy Center Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
383272394
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Mount Clemens, MI, USA
Phone
5864630123
Rating
79
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Child Abuse, Prevention

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,515,845
Expenses
$1,567,799
Assets
$770,071
Liabilities
$76,194

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

Leadership & pay

20 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • FRANK ACCAVITTI JR (PRESIDENT)
  • SHERI L MILSON (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • DORIE VAZQUEZ-NOLAN (FORMER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • JACLYN KOCHIS (FORMER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

People named in this filing

  • FRANK ACCAVITTI JR (PRESIDENT)
  • SHERI L MILSON (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • TOM MORLEY JR (TREASURER)

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

The mission of macomb county child advocacy center, inc. Is to prevent and reduce the incidence and trauma of child sexual and physical abuse in macomb county through collaborative,

What it reported doing in 2024

Macomb county child advocacy center, inc. Provides intervention and helps promote healing to families faced with the emotional trauma caused by child abuse. Services include coordinating a multi-disciplinary team to observe an interview by a forensic specialist, a comprehensive medical exam, crisis counseling, legal advocacy, parent support groups, education and childrens groups. All services are provided to clients at no charge.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 86% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 91
  • Transparency & Controls: 69
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 34
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 95%; rating input score 95
  • Program expense ratio: 91.8%; rating input score 92
  • Fundraising efficiency: $29.23 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: 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: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -3.4%; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.49; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.1; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 9.6% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.5% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 9.6% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 95% of revenue deployed · 91.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 17 of 17 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 20 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 30 of 30 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 27/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 23/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 43/100.