National Association of Counsel for Children

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
840743810
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Denver, CO, USA
Phone
7204209785
Rating
79
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,747,589
Expenses
$1,898,921
Assets
$752,795
Liabilities
$216,678

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

Leadership & pay

19 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LaShanda Taylor Adams JD (President)
  • Dawne Mitchell JD (Vice President)
  • Kim Dvorchak (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Kim Dvorchak (Executive Director): $159,144 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

NACC advances childrens and parents rights by supporting a diverse, inclusive community of child welfare lawyers to provide zealous legal representation and by advocating for equitable, anti-racist solutions co-designed by people with lived experience.

What it reported doing in 2024

BUILDING COMMUNITY: NACC builds communities of practice among child welfare legal professionals through our membership program, national conference, and online convenings. NACC convened over 725 practitioners in Salt Lake City and 400 more online for our 47th National Child Welfare Law Conference. NACCs State Coordinator program expanded to 40 states/jurisdictions. NACC expanded law school engagement, publishing a Child Welfare Law Career Guide, and hosted a Child Welfare Law Career Fair. NACC also convened and partnered with NACCs National Advisory Council on Childrens Legal Representation (NACCLR), a group of young professionals with lived experience in the child welfare system who advise NACC.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 61% 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

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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 88
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 22
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 97.7%; rating input score 98
  • Program expense ratio: 90%; rating input score 90
  • Fundraising efficiency: $8.77 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 34; 34th 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: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -8.7%; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.4; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.29; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 8.4%; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 9.4% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.1% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.3% per year; rating input score 100; 36th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 97.7% of revenue deployed · 90% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 22 of 22 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $1.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $159K · 19 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 28 of 28 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 34/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 19/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 19/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 25/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 42/100.