Cypress School SF

Legal name: Cypress School of San Francisco F/k/a Cow Hollow Preschool

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
943373115
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Official website data refreshed
Jul 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
San Francisco, CA, US
Phone
(415) 921-2328
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Kindergarten, Preschool, Nursery School, Early Admissions

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$5,479,416
Expenses
$5,420,051
Assets
$6,075,809
Liabilities
$562,939

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • DARCY CAMPBELL (SCHOOL DIRECTOR): $232,556 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Cypress School of San Francisco is a full-day, full-year preschool in the Presidio of San Francisco, serving children ages 2–5. The school believes children learn through play, exploration, and discovery within nurturing relationships among children, parents, and teachers. Its curriculum is grounded in anti-bias education, aiming to cultivate curiosity, critical thinking, stewardship, social responsibility, and a lifelong love of learning.

What it reported doing in 2024

Cypress school of san francisco provided developmentally appropriate education and teacher-directed activities for 135 children age two, three, four and five. Cypress school of san francisco also provides parent education to all student families.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 84% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 77
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 85
  • Sustainability: 44
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 82.6%; rating input score 83
  • Program expense ratio: 84.6%; rating input score 85
  • Fundraising efficiency: $5.76 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: 1.1%; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.12; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.09; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.3%; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 14.6% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 13.5% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 14.7% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 4 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 82.6% of revenue deployed · 84.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 12 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $4.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $233K · 12 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 29 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 21/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 38/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 41/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 59/100.