StriveTogether
Legal name: StriveTogether Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 813380647
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2017–2025
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025
- Location
- Cincinnati, OH, US
- Phone
- 513.929.1150
- Rating
- 86
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Standard
- Sector
- Private Grantmaking Foundations
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $48,099,706
- Expenses
- $38,823,887
- Assets
- $21,360,274
- Liabilities
- $2,589,517
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
24 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Jennifer Blatz (Chief Executive Officer)
- John Garcia - Start 0525 (Executive Director, Pathways Impact Fund)
Highest reported compensation
- Jennifer Blatz (Chief Executive Officer): $487,512 total reported compensation
- Colin Groth (Chief Advancement Officer): $301,725 total reported compensation
- Ashwina Kirpalani (VP, Insights and Analytics): $291,458 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
We help communities learn what works to put more young people on a path to economic opportunity.
What it reported doing in 2025
Cradle to Career Network: StriveTogether connects, champions and supports the work of communities in the Cradle to Career Network to get better results for young people. In 2025, the Network spanned 70 communities in 28 states, reaching 13.8 million youth. 71% of communities in the Network with sufficient data have improved four or more cradle-to-career outcomes relative to a 2022 baseline. We also launched a set of seven outcomes playbooks, giving communities practical, data-driven tools to get results. Our investments continued to strengthen civic infrastructure and increase access to capital to leverage local investments. Grants awarded this year supported a range of initiatives to increase economic mobility by helping more young people reach key milestones.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 95% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 46% for direct work, and 54% for grants.
The verdict
STRONG - 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 total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 73
- Transparency & Controls: 96
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 52
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 69.5%; rating input score 70
- Program expense ratio: 85.3%; rating input score 85
- Fundraising efficiency: $18.63 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 5 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 83
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Pass
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
- Written employment contract: Pass
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th 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; 64th 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: 19.3%; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.55; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.12; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 7.4%; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 14.8% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 15.8% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 12.3% per year; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 2 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 69.5% of revenue deployed · 85.3% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $33.1M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $488K · 24 people listed · 5 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $2.4M reported
- Consistency: 38 of 38 current checks pass
- Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 9 filing years from 2017 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 39 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 28 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.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 52/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 14/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 40/100.