Charter System Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
462029927
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Woodstock, GA, USA
Phone
7703547653
Rating
79
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Management & Technical Assistance

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$559,086
Expenses
$518,419
Assets
$503,092
Liabilities
$15,766

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • DANIEL J WEBER (FORMER EXEC DIR): $183,123 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 Foundation is supported by voluntary contributions from the city and county school systems that have charter systems status under Georgia law and is governed by a seven-member board comprised of system superintendents. We provide workshops for our systems to share ideas, provide training, publish a newsletter, and work with policymakers to let them know about the good work charter systems are doing.

What it reported doing in 2024

The Foundation provided several workshops to provide a forum for charter systems to exchange innovative ideas and to provide guidance to systems that were considering or in the process of applying to the state BOE for charter system status under Georgia law.The Foundation began development of a training program to be delivered by consultants under contract with the Foundation. The training targets local school board members, superintendents, central office staff, and school level governance team and administrators. The training focuses on school governance issues and the use of flexibility to advance student achievement.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 77% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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 expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 81
  • Transparency & Controls: 83
  • Accountability: 74
  • Sustainability: 46
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 78.9%; rating input score 79
  • Program expense ratio: 85.1%; rating input score 85
  • Fundraising efficiency: $48.13 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th 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: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 7.3%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.97; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 35.3%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 10.3% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.4% per year; rating input score 100; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 9.8% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 78.9% of revenue deployed · 85.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $441K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $183K · 9 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 24 of 24 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 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: 3 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 56/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 42/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 5/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 58/100.