Counseling and Support Services for Youth
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 264655116
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2011–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Santa Clara, CA, USA
- Phone
- 4084935289
- Rating
- 83
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Health - General and Rehabilitative N.E.C.
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $3,534,691
- Expenses
- $3,305,828
- Assets
- $2,556,839
- Liabilities
- $206,833
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
5 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- TERILYN MONROE (PRESIDENT)
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Cassy is a silicon valley nonprofit that partners with local schools to support students' social and emotional well-being through crisis intervention, ongoing counseling, and proactive mental health education. Cassy's mission is to de-stigmatize mental health services and make supporting students' social and emotional well-being a norm in our local schools.
What it reported doing in 2024
Los gatos high schoolin our fifthteenth year of partnership with los gatos high school, one behavior interventionist provided therapeutic sessions to the school.saratoga union school districtin our tenth year of partnership with saratoga union school district, one cassy therapist provided therapeutic sessions, in two schools.moreland school districtin our eleventh year of partnership with moreland school district, one cassy therapists provided therapeutic sessions in one school.st lucy parish schoolin our third year of partnership with st lucy parish school, one cassy therapists provided therapeutic sessions in one school.queen of apostles schoolin our third year of partnership with queen of apostles school, one cassy therapists provided therapeutic sessions in one school.st frances cabrini schoolin our second year of partnership with st frances cabrini school, one cassy therapists provided therapeutic sessions in one school.st clare schoolin our second year of partnership with st clare school, one cassy therapists provided therapeutic sessions in one school.st catherine catholic schoolin our second year of partnership with st catherine catholic school, one cassy therapists provided therapeutic sessions in one school.connect community charter schoolin our second year of partnership with connect community charter school, one cassy therapists provided therapeutic sessions in one school.ravenswood city school districtin our sixteenth year of partnership with ravenswood city school district, four cassy therapists provided therapeutic sessions within three schools.st elizabeth seton catholic schoolin our first year of partnership with st elizabeth seton catholic school, one cassy therapists provided therapeutic sessions in one school.st joseph of cupertio catholic schoolin our first year of partnership with st joseph of cupertino catholic school, one cassy therapists provided therapeutic sessions in one school.st leo the great catholic schoolin our first year of partnership with st leo the great catholic school, one cassy therapists provided therapeutic sessions in one school.st nicolas catholic schoolin our first year of partnership with st nicolas catholic school, one cassy therapists provided therapeutic sessions in one school.khan lab schoolsin our first year of partnership with khan lab schools, one cassy therapists provided therapeutic sessions in two schools.las lomitas elementary school districtin our first year of partnership with las lomitas elementary school district, one cassy therapists provided therapeutic sessions in two schools.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 82% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- 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.
The verdict
STRONG - 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 expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 71
- Transparency & Controls: 92
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 47
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 74.6%; rating input score 75
- Program expense ratio: 80.6%; rating input score 81
- Fundraising efficiency: $5.47 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- 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 8 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: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 6.5%; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.77; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.08; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 6.2%; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 4.2% per year; rating input score 100; 35th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 7.5% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 13.8% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 74.6% of revenue deployed · 80.6% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $2.7M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $203K · 5 people listed
- Consistency: 24 of 24 current checks pass
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
- Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
- 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.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 19/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 55/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 29/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 46/100.