Great Leaders Strong Schools

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
844430457
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Rosewell, GA, USA
Phone
2054704690
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Civil Rights, Social Action, Advocacy N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$140,603
Expenses
$118,783
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KATHERINE DAUPHINAIS (CEO (THRU 2/29/24))
  • LARRY KEVIN YOUNGBLOOD (CEO (THRU 1/31/24))
  • NED BLUM (CEO (BEGAN 3/1/24))

Highest reported compensation

  • KATHERINE DAUPHINAIS (CEO (THRU 2/29/24)): $31,867 total reported compensation
  • LARRY KEVIN YOUNGBLOOD (CEO (THRU 1/31/24)): $15,100 total reported compensation
  • NED BLUM (CEO (BEGAN 3/1/24)): $3,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Great leaders, strong school's (glss) primary purpose is to promote social welfare by conducting research, education and advocacy focused on ensuring a strong and equitable public education system in Arizona.

What it reported doing in 2024

Public education and outreach: glss was founded on the premise that the public education system in Arizona must be reoriented toward a focus on the practical needs of students and families. While Arizona has instituted a robust basic infrastructure of school choice, glss believes that it must be fortified by strong mechanisms of accountability and equitable access to quality schools for all students. To this end, the organization developed an internet and social media presence to broadly disseminate information and mobilized parents and educators to support public policies that enhance school choice and access, empower individual schools to develop programs and initiatives tailored to their unique student populations, and strengthen accountability to taxpayers.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 60% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 71% for direct work, and 29% for grants.

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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 71
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 33
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 74.9%; rating input score 75
  • Program expense ratio: 88.6%; rating input score 89
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 80th 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: 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: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 15.5%; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 42.1%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4.9% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.6% per year; rating input score 100; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -71.5% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 74.9% of revenue deployed · 88.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 2 of 2 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $105K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $32K · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 21 of 21 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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 — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 1/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 6/100.