Strategic Education Research Partnership Institute

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
300231116
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2022238555
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Science and Technology N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$7,093,914
Expenses
$4,313,977
Assets
$3,997,499
Liabilities
$150,142

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

18 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • MARY SUZANNE DONOVAN (EXECUTIVE DI): $377,712 total reported compensation
  • CHRISTINE DAHNKE - DIRECTOR ORG DEV (AND PARTNERS): $205,618 total reported compensation
  • MATTHEW ELLINGER (DIRECTOR OF): $199,298 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The strategic education research partnership generates innovative, scalable solutions to our schools' most pressing problems through sustained collaborations among researchers, practitioners, and designers. We work to increase equity, improve student learning, and give teachers and students greater agency.

What it reported doing in 2025

Adapting stari to accelerate student reading achievement in middle grades serp was awarded a two-year, 1-million grant as part of ies' leveraging evidence to accelerate recovery nationwide (learn) network, which focuses on adapting and preparing to scale existing, evidence-based products that have the potential to accelerate students' learning relative to pre- pandemic rates of growth. The purpose of this project is to further adapt and assess the impact of the strategic adolescent reading intervention (stari) to respond to the urgent need to accelerate learning among middle grades students reading two or more years below grade level. The goals of this project are to identify barriers to uptake and implementation of the program, to develop the highest priority adaptations that address students' needs, and to test the effects of stari on students' academic outcomes. Adaptations will be prioritized according to a roughly estimated rate of return, and the highest priority adaptations will be undertaken within the grant period to the extent possible. The research team will assess the effectiveness of stari for accelerating student reading growth using a regression discontinuity design that will allow for comparison of students who participate in stari in one partner district with those who do not. The team will also compare current stari students' growth trajectories with reading growth of middle school students in the same schools in 2017-18 and 2018-19, in order to analyze stari's effectiveness as compared with pre- pandemic rates of growth.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 75% for direct work, and 25% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of total spending goes to programs and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 70
  • Transparency & Controls: 83
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 58
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 53.2%; rating input score 53
  • Program expense ratio: 87.5%; rating input score 88
  • Fundraising efficiency: $2,464.64 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 75th 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: 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: 39.2%; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.93; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.04; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 29.1%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -3.8% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -1% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3.3% per year; rating input score 100; 24th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 53.2% of revenue deployed · 87.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $3.8M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $378K · 18 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 3 contractors listed · $1.5M reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 31 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 8 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 53/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 31/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 8/100.