Radcliffe Child Care Centers Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
042487200
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2011
Forms available
Form 990 2011
Location
Cambridge, MA, USA
Phone
6174953504
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Child Day Care

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,292,910
Expenses
$1,304,783
Assets
$672,448
Liabilities
$271,498

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2011. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2011. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To provide the highest quality of child care to the faculty and staff of harvard university and the surrounding community.

What it reported doing in 2011

Operation of full-time day care center licensed to serve up to 60 children ages three months through pre-school.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 92% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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

- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Accountability: 69
  • Sustainability: 30
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • Program expense ratio: Limited
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 60th 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: 64.3%; rating input score 64; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -0.9%; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.52; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.4; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 19.8%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 2.2% per year; rating input score 100; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.1% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: 9 of 14 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $81K · 14 people listed
  • Consistency: 23 of 23 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2009 to 2011
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 36/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 28/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 12/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 29/100.