California County Superintendents

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
680132885
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Sacramento, CA, USA
Phone
9164463095
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Elementary, Secondary Education, K - 12

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$6,444,919
Expenses
$5,808,529
Assets
$11,986,432
Liabilities
$6,826,892

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

Leadership & pay

23 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • RICHARD DUVARNEY (PRESIDENT)
  • TODD FINNEL (PRESIDENT ELECT & REGION 9 CHAIR)
  • GAYLE GARBOLINO-MOJICA (PAST PRESIDENT)
  • KAREN STAPF WALTERS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • KAREN STAPF WALTERS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $501,381 total reported compensation
  • DERICK LENNOX (SENIOR DIRECTOR,GOV RELATI): $268,392 total reported compensation
  • TIFFANIE FLOYD (DIRECTOR, FINANCE & OPERAT): $220,308 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's mission is to strengthen the service and leadership capabilities of California's 58 county superintendents in support of students, schools, districts and communities.

What it reported doing in 2024

Member services: the organization provides the organizational mechanism for the 58 county superintendents of schools to design and implement statewide programs to identify and promote quality cost-effective educational practices and services, and provide support to school districts in the areas of student services, curriculum and instructional services, fiscal accountability and business services, and technology and telecommunications.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 95% 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. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 62
  • Transparency & Controls: 74
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 50
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 68.5%; rating input score 68
  • Program expense ratio: 73.5%; rating input score 74
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 86.2%; rating input score 86; 24th 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: 5 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 56
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 9.9%; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.06; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.57; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 32.7%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -0.8% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -0.3% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.4% per year; rating input score 100; 22nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 68.5% of revenue deployed · 73.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 17 of 17 board members independent · 5 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $4.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $501K · 23 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $299K reported
  • Consistency: 33 of 34 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2015 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 24 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 16 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.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 4/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 18/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.