Crestmont School

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
941724056
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Richmond, CA, USA
Phone
5102374164
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,403,566
Expenses
$1,571,218
Assets
$584,265
Liabilities
$262,997

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DIANNE DRISCOLL (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • JENNIFER BELL (PRESIDENT (THROUGH 5/31/25))
  • NIKKOLE GADSEN (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • KATHERINE GRAY (DIRECTOR / PRESIDENT (6/1/25 - 6/30/25))

Highest reported compensation

  • DIANNE DRISCOLL (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $156,317 total reported compensation
  • SHAKIRA KING (FINANCE & HR DIRECTOR): $137,066 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

At crestmont school we cultivate a creative learning environment where students become critical thinkers, skillful collaborators, and courageous changemaking citizens.

What it reported doing in 2024

Crestmont school is a cooperative k-8 elementary school located in the scenic hills of richmond, California. It was founded in 1969 with the goal of creating an environment that encourages curiosity, critical thinking, community spirit, and academic excellence for children of all backgrounds. Crestmont has six classes: kindergarten, first, second/third grade, fourth/fifth grade, 6th grade and 7/8th grade. Each class has a credentialed lead teacher and some of the younger grades have an aide. We have five specialty teachers in the following areas: science, music, physical education, spanish, and art as well as a learning specialist. We offer electives to our middle school students as well as overnight field trips for our older students.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 95% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 82% 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: 84
  • Transparency & Controls: 68
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 16
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 98.2%; rating input score 98
  • Program expense ratio: 87.7%; rating input score 88
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 19th 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: 99.4%; rating input score 99; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 80%; rating input score 80; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 56
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -11.9%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.37; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.45; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 18.7%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4.8% per year; rating input score 100; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.4% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.7% per year; rating input score 100; 42nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 98.2% of revenue deployed · 87.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 10 board members independent · 5 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $156K · 14 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 32 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 15/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 17/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 17/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 16/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization could not be resolved against the register, so the check is unfinished.