Core Districts

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
473207203
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Sacramento, CA, USA
Phone
9164412917
Rating
84
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Educational Services and Schools - Other

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$8,062,314
Expenses
$7,394,480
Assets
$6,552,459
Liabilities
$446,941

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

Leadership & pay

19 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • RICHARD MILLER (CEO)
  • MICHELLE STEAGALL (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CORE CAPABILITY BUILDING PROG.)
  • DAVID CALHOUN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CORE DATA COLLABORATIVE)

Highest reported compensation

  • MICHELLE STEAGALL (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CORE CAPABILITY BUILDING PROG.): $270,134 total reported compensation
  • DAVID MONTES DE OCA (CHIEF OF IMPROVEMENT, DISTRICT PARTNERSHIPS): $242,032 total reported compensation
  • BRIGITTE MARSHALL (CHIEF OF STAFF): $207,787 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To assist participating school districts to work together to innovate, implement and scale new strategies and tools to help students succeed and meet the challenges of the 21st century.

What it reported doing in 2024

Data analytics: insights dashboard is a program developed to refine the calculation at the heart of core's multiple measures accountability system as well as building capacity for systemic success.data collaborative is a collaborative between participating leas (districts, charter leas and additional networks) focused on improving student outcomes. The data collaborative's long-term goal is for all California students to have strong support, effective programming, and an educational community standing together by their side so that they can achieve and succeed in college and career. Work toward this goal is supported by facilitating inter- and intra-district data collaboration that will help identify and address inequities in educational experiences and outcomes. The hope is to support member districts (which include approximately 1.2 million students) to adapt this work for local school report cards that will enable parents, students, educators and leaders to understand and respond to matters of school quality.support index is a collaborative project that will leverage the full data set in the core data collaborative, which includes over two million students across 150 leas (small, medium, large, rural, urban, suburban, charter, district). This effort will explore additional measures of student need and/or assets. These include such items as address-linked census data (e.g., crime, median income, health) and locally available data in oakland (e.g., student choice data). At its heart, the approach of the students needs index is importantly unique in that instead of relying on the perceptions of individuals about what defines need, the organization will be exploring the relationship between outcomes of interest (e.g., student performance on standards tests) and student and community factors that are outside of the education system.s control. This approach builds on research and practice in the areas student growth modeling and predictive analytics, both of which are part of the existing core-ea data system.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 95% 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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 82
  • Transparency & Controls: 83
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 47
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 79%; rating input score 79
  • Program expense ratio: 85.5%; rating input score 86
  • Fundraising efficiency: $109.56 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • 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: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • 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: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 8.3%; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.89; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.07; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 18.8%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 7.1% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.6% per year; rating input score 100; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3.4% per year; rating input score 100; 26th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 79% of revenue deployed · 85.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $6.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $270K · 19 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $2M reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 32 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2015 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 8 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 33/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 59/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 14/100.