Catholic Schools Collaborative

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
462857504
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2013
Location
Los Angeles, CA, USA
Phone
(213) 995-6858
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Religion Related N.E.C.
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,305,271
Expenses
$1,183,116
Assets
$636,629
Liabilities
$204,120

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ELLEN P HOLTON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • ELLEN P HOLTON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $184,913 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Catholic Schools Collaborative (CSC) is an architect of impactful partnerships that establish and support multi-school efforts fostering best practices in the areas of academics, operations, parent engagement and social emotional student supports at Catholic PK-8 Grade schools in lower income Los Angeles communities.

What it reported doing in 2024

PILLAR 4: PARENT, FAMILY & COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT. Family engagement has been proven to have an immense positive impact on student achievement, participation and healthy growth; additionally, family engagement establishes schools into true communities for growth, learning and care. CSCs Parent, Family & Community Engagement pillar area builds parent and family engagement in an undertanding of students education and critical parent-school relations.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 98% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 81
  • Transparency & Controls: 66
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 41
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 88.2%; rating input score 88
  • Program expense ratio: 97%; rating input score 97
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • 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: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: 9.4%; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.54; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.32; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 15.6%; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 14.1% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.9% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.9% per year; rating input score 100; 38th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 4 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 88.2% of revenue deployed · 97% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $1.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $185K · 4 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $242K reported
  • Consistency: 22 of 23 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2014 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 3 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.

Key Signals

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

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 25/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D revenue reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 22/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 23/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization is recorded as not currently operating in California.