Code the Dream Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
263275886
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2009
Location
Durham, NC, USA
Phone
9198866075
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Education N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$9,480,747
Expenses
$5,899,523
Assets
$8,216,430
Liabilities
$1,277,809

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

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DANIEL REARICK (CO-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • DAISY MAGNUS-ARYITEY (CO-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • DANIEL REARICK (CO-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $193,184 total reported compensation
  • DAISY MAGNUS-ARYITEY (CO-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $181,671 total reported compensation
  • THOMAS RAU (DIRECTOR OF CTD LABS): $116,308 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Code the dream creates opportunity that changes lives, builds technology that benefits our communities, and expands access to the skills we need for a more innovative world.

What it reported doing in 2024

Code the dream opens access to opportunity through free intensive technical training. In ctd labs, apprentices hone their skills by developing real-world technologies that benefit our communities. Ctds model offers a unique win-win, where participants gain hands-on experience building technology that makes the world a better place, and then use that experience to launch life-changing careers. In 2024, ctd expanded rapidly to address our nations growing opportunity gap, and to ensure that people from all backgrounds have a voice in creating solutions to our most pressing problems. 2024 data points: 1,432 applicants and 475 students // 89% of ctd apprentices who completed their apprenticeship received permanent job offers within 6 months, at average starting annual salaries exceeding $80,000.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 84% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of total spending goes to programs and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 70
  • Transparency & Controls: 74
  • Accountability: 81
  • Sustainability: 64
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 57.5%; rating input score 58
  • Program expense ratio: 90.6%; rating input score 91
  • Fundraising efficiency: $33.33 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 16th 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: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 37.8%; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.39; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.16; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 13.7%; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 32.5% per year; rating input score 100; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 31.1% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 32.4% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 57.5% of revenue deployed · 90.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 12 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $5.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $193K · 16 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $362K reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 30 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 58/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 49/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D revenue reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 21/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 50/100.