Springboard Collaborative
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 453719806
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2012–2025
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025
- Location
- Philadelphia, PA, US
- Phone
- (302) 468-6312
- Rating
- 71
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Human Service Organizations
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $28,144,328
- Expenses
- $29,366,832
- Assets
- $35,678,983
- Liabilities
- $3,220,403
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
13 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- ALEJANDRO GIBES DE GAC (CEO & FOUNDER)
- MICHELLE KATHERYN SHIRES (PRESIDENT AS OF AUGUST 2025)
- SANJEEV MIDHA (PRESIDENT UNTIL AUGUST 2025)
Highest reported compensation
- ALEJANDRO GIBES DE GAC (CEO & FOUNDER): $636,415 total reported compensation
- MICHELLE KATHERYN SHIRES (PRESIDENT AS OF AUGUST 2025): $395,462 total reported compensation
- SANJEEV MIDHA (PRESIDENT UNTIL AUGUST 2025): $354,696 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Together we accelerate literacy and math learning and build joyful communities where every child can thrive.
What it reported doing in 2025
Springboard collaborative offers a structured, research-based literacy program delivered by teachers and supported by families that improves literacy skills and closes the achievement gap. We coach educators and family members to help kids learn to read by the fourth grade. Springboard envisions a world in which all children have the requisite literacy skills to access life opportunities.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- 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
SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 59
- Transparency & Controls: 79
- Accountability: 88
- Sustainability: 28
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 62.4%; rating input score 62
- Program expense ratio: 58.9%; rating input score 59
- Fundraising efficiency: $14.36 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
- Compensation committee: Pass
- Independent consultant: Pass
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 87.5%; rating input score 88; 17th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -4.3%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.21; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.09; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 7.8%; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 18.6% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 18.8% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 20.7% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 11 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 62.4% of revenue deployed · 58.9% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 7 of 8 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $17.3M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $636K · 13 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 33 of 33 current checks pass
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
- Filing history: 11 filing years from 2012 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 6 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.
- 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.
Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 59/100.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 44/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 11/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 35/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 37/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.