Rochester Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 160755822
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025
- Location
- Rochester, NY, USA
- Phone
- 5853256101
- Rating
- 79
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Child Abuse, Prevention
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $6,955,390
- Expenses
- $7,005,826
- Assets
- $3,661,923
- Liabilities
- $1,461,679
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
20 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- ANDREA CONVERY (FIRST VICE CHAIR/PRESIDENT)
- LAURIE VALENTINE (PRESIDENT/CEO)
- SARAH FITZGIBBONS (VICE PRESIDENT OF PROGRAMS)
Highest reported compensation
- LAURIE VALENTINE (PRESIDENT/CEO): $157,027 total reported compensation
- JESSICA BRUMBAUGH (COO): $117,884 total reported compensation
- SARAH FITZGIBBONS (VICE PRESIDENT OF PROGRAMS): $113,634 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To provide the best opportunities for a bright future by repectfully partnering with children and their families, advocating for their health, well-being and safety, and working to heal and strengthen relationships.
What it reported doing in 2025
Family trauma intervention provides home-based crisis intervention and counseling services to assist children and families who have experienced domestic violence or the death of a child or in cases involving severe abuse or injury of a child. The program works to address issues surrounding this trauma and/or loss. Services include comprehensive assessment, counseling, treatment planning, referrals and advocacy.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Grant-funded. 89% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 99% 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 expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 83
- Transparency & Controls: 71
- Accountability: 91
- Sustainability: 25
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 83.7%; rating input score 84
- Program expense ratio: 82%; rating input score 82
- Fundraising efficiency: $60.86 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 82; 82nd 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 75th 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
- 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: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -0.7%; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.52; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.4; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 5.5%; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 6.9% per year; rating input score 100; 46th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 6% per year; rating input score 100; 44th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 4.3% per year; rating input score 100; 29th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 83.7% of revenue deployed · 82% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 6 filed program accomplishments · $5.7M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $157K · 20 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 34 of 34 current checks pass
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 2 filed related-organization links
- 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.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 24/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 17/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 21/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 53/100.