Cityschools Collaborative

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
813516887
IRS 990 coverage
2017–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2016
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2025279218
Rating
81
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Nonmonetary Support N.E.C.

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,306,599
Expenses
$4,301,019
Assets
$3,939,970
Liabilities
$280,797

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CATHERINE PERETTI (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • RICH POHLMAN (PRESIDENT & CHAIR AS OF 9/24)
  • RACHEL EVANS (FORMER CHIEF EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • CATHERINE PERETTI (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $237,851 total reported compensation
  • DEIDRA BAILEY (SR DIR, PROG DEV.): $168,627 total reported compensation
  • SUSANNAH TSIEN (SR DIR, PROG STRATEGY): $153,857 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Cityschools collaborative (formerly citytutor dc) catalyzes high-impact tutoring and strategic talent models to serve thousands of students, improving student well-being, accelerating academic performance, and enhancing flexible staffing systems in schools.

What it reported doing in 2024

Cityschools collaborative supports 100+ schools, community-based partners, and government stakeholders to improve outcomes for students furthest from opportunity. We recruit, train, and coach schools and community partners to launch, implement, and scale school-based, research-backed interventions through high-impact tutoring, our tutor-to-teacher pipeline program, and strategic staffing & instructional design. To date, our coalition of stakeholders has served more than 25,000 students in dc public and public charter schools; students supported by csc see improved attendance, well-being, and academic growth as measured through rigorous research.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 52% for direct work, and 48% for grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 75
  • Transparency & Controls: 84
  • Accountability: 93
  • Sustainability: 35
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 80.1%; rating input score 80
  • Program expense ratio: 80.2%; rating input score 80
  • Fundraising efficiency: $10.11 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Pass
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 99.1%; rating input score 99; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 87.5%; rating input score 88; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • 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: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 0.1%; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.92; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.07; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 24.8%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.2% per year; rating input score 100; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 10.8% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 9.2% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 80.1% of revenue deployed · 80.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 8 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $3.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $238K · 14 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $128K reported
  • Consistency: 30 of 31 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2017 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 29 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 22 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 38/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 34/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 34/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 8/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.