Communities in Schools of Georgia

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
581912923
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Atlanta, GA, USA
Phone
4048813291
Rating
79
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$12,413,127
Expenses
$10,787,403
Assets
$12,082,060
Liabilities
$2,860,730

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

Leadership & pay

20 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CAROL LEWIS (PRESIDENT & CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • CAROL LEWIS (PRESIDENT & CEO): $213,927 total reported compensation
  • LEYLA COMPANI (CHIEF PHILANTHROPY OFFICER): $161,592 total reported compensation
  • PAULA GOODMAN (CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER): $161,303 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Communities in schools champions the connection of needed community resources with schools to help young people successfully learn, stay in school, and prepare for life. --- communities in schools is a network of nonprofit organizations focused on improving student and school success by providing needed support and services to students and schools. Our ultimate goal is to see that all students are successful in school and complete their education at least through high school. --- communities in schools believes that programs don't change kids, relationships do. Our philosophy is embedded in the cis five basics for kids, which focus on building a supportive environment for children and youth to help them thrive and be successful. The cis five basics were adopted by america's promise when it started in 1997.

What it reported doing in 2024

Comprehensive Student Dropout Prevention Initiative - DOE - Communities In Schools of Georgia receives funding through the Georgia Department of Education to provide dropout prevention support to youth in grades K-12 through our network of local CIS affiliate organizations. During FY2025, Communities In Schools (CIS) of Georgia provided training and technical support to 16 CIS local CIS affiliates and 19 CIS of Georgia subsidiary organizations located throughout the state. These CIS organizations provided services to students in 46 school districts across 41 counties in Georgia. CIS of Georgia provided support to our state network in development and implementation of the proven CIS Model of wraparound services for schools and students. In addition, CIS of Georgia provided technical support to affiliates and subsidiaries in the areas of nonprofit management, board development, resource development, communications, and evaluation for the purpose of enhancing affiliate partnerships and improving outcomes for the schools and students they serve. In total, CIS of Georgia staff recorded 1,629 technical assistance and training contacts. This work included 496 site visits and 1,063 more formal support services taking place through events, formal trainings, meetings, and webinars. During FY2025, local CIS affiliates provided services to a total of 118,912 Georgia students (unduplicated) at 216 school and community-based sites, including providing intensive sustained services to 8,958 at-risk students in need of on-going support, and whole-school prevention services and short-term intervention services to 117,454 students. Affiliates helped 41,583 parents become more involved in local schools through parent engagement activities, and provided almost 15,000 hours of community volunteer support to schools and student through 3,870 community volunteers and an additional 8,400 hours of volunteer tutorial services from CIS of Georgia AmeriCorps Volunteer Members. During FY2025, CIS affiliates achieved the following results for the at-risk students they served: 72.4% of students with attendance problems improved their attendance; 88.0% of students with disciplinary problems improved their behavior; 77.5% of students struggling academically improved their grades in core subject areas; 99.0% of at-risk elementary school students were promoted; 99.1% of at-risk middle school students were promoted; 98.6% of at-risk high school students stayed in school or graduated; 483 (96.6%) CIS case managed students graduated.

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 76% for direct work, and 24% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - 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 total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 71
  • Transparency & Controls: 75
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 56
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 69.2%; rating input score 69
  • Program expense ratio: 79.4%; rating input score 79
  • Fundraising efficiency: $17.07 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd 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: 99.5%; rating input score 100; 34th 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; 66th 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: 13.1%; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.12; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.24; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 7.6%; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6.9% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 11.8% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 9.8% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 69.2% of revenue deployed · 79.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $8.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $214K · 20 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 3 contractors listed · $577K reported
  • Consistency: 34 of 34 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 29 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 24 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 — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 53/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 40/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 32/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 54/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.