San Francisco CASA

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
943039028
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
San Francisco, CA, USA
Phone
4153988001
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Civil Rights

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,709,785
Expenses
$3,991,012
Assets
$8,595,150
Liabilities
$1,622,537

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

Leadership & pay

18 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Kate Durham (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Kate Durham (Executive Director): $200,529 total reported compensation
  • Paul Knudsen (Chief Operating Officer): $163,280 total reported compensation
  • Thomas Zickgraf (Director of Finance & HR): $156,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

San Francisco CASA transforms the lives of children and youth traumatized and displaced in the foster care and related systems by providing one consistent, caring volunteer advocate, trained to address each childs needs in the court and community.

What it reported doing in 2024

San Francisco CASA matches youth in the foster care & juvenile justice systems with highly trained volunteer advocates (CASAs) who are appointed by the court to advocate for their youths best interests, facilitate access to services to address their needs, & provide a consistent adult presence for this vulnerable population. In our most recently completed program year, we provided 370 youth with the advocacy, support & mentorship that all young people need for healthy development & a positive transition to adulthood.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 75% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 96% 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. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 62
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 60
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 62%; rating input score 62
  • Program expense ratio: 72.8%; rating input score 73
  • Fundraising efficiency: $6.72 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.4%; rating input score 94; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • 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: 68.6%; rating input score 69; 18th 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: 9 of 9 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: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 15.3%; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.15; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.19; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 13%; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 13.7% per year; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 11.2% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 17.8% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 62% of revenue deployed · 72.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $201K · 18 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 35 of 36 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2016 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 3 filed related-organization links
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 25/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 22/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 45/100.