Common Good Community

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
992223560
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2025–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2024
Location
Davis, CA, USA
Rating
92
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Services N.E.C.

Reported finances

Revenue
$198,582
Expenses
$145,723
Assets
$52,859

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Rebekah Rube Jo Honig (Co-Founder Executive Director Board Secretary)
  • Jason Honig (Co-Founder Interim Executive Director)

People named in this filing

  • Graham Charlton (Chairman of Board)
  • Karl Schmitt (Board Member)
  • Brent Rube (Board Member)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Common Good Community operates the Coordinated Care Companions program providing community-based health navigation care coordination and supportive services to individuals and families experiencing unmet health-related social needs. Services are delivered using a trauma-informed culturally responsive approach and are aligned with CalAIM and PATH initiative priorities.

What it reported doing in 2025

Activities & Outcomes: During the reporting year Common Good Community: Served over 500 individuals members through community health worker CHW engagement care navigation education and support Generated approximately 18,000 in program service revenue through CHW-related services Provided 3,500 in direct member assistance to address urgent needs such as transportation basic necessities and care access barriers Population Served: Individuals and families facing barriers related to health access social determinants of health and system navigation.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 73% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filed totals do not add up and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 100
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Sustainability: 46
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 99.8%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 26.6%; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.36; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 77.5%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: 99.8% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 3 filed program accomplishments · $198K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 6 of 7 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 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 — Transparency & Controls: Part III program expenses within total did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 30/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 1/100.