Community High School Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
134224216
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Redwood City, CA, USA
Phone
6502579880
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fund Raising and/or Fund Distribution

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,797,801
Expenses
$4,105,118
Assets
$34,945,586
Liabilities
$26,455,501

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • OLGA PULIDO-CROWE (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • EDWARD LEE (CFO (LEFT FEB 2025)): $313,198 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 organization's primary mission is to support the operations of all schools within the charter management organization of summit public schools and the summit institute.

What it reported doing in 2024

The marshall teacher residency program, operated through the summit institute, supports the organization's mission through facilities-related activities. In addition, the foundation supports educational initiatives through the slrt tuition, which is a subsidy for the teacher residency program that prepare educators to serve public schools. For the year ended june 30, 2025, the organization leased three facilities to summit public schools to further its mission.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 66% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 96% 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. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 88
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 44
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 99.1%; rating input score 99
  • Program expense ratio: 99.8%; rating input score 100
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 84.6%; rating input score 85; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd 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: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -8.1%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 8.51; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.76; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 1.3%; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0.1% per year; rating input score 100; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -45.7% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -6.3% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 99.1% of revenue deployed · 99.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $4.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $313K · 5 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 21 of 23 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2018 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 2 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 16/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 11/100.