The Opportunity Trust D/b/a Zest Education

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN: 821838644
IRS 990 coverage: 2018–2024
Forms available: Form 990 2024
Location: St Louis, MO, USA
Phone: 3143285688
Rating: 87
Verdict: STRONG
Rating confidence: Moderate
Sector: Nonmonetary Support N.E.C.

Reported finances

Revenue: $21,580,942
Expenses: $21,538,891
Assets: $4,041,644
Liabilities: $0

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

ERIC SCROGGINS (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)

Highest reported compensation

ERIC SCROGGINS (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER): $441,418 total reported compensation
JESSE DIXON (PARTNER): $234,249 total reported compensation
BRANDI CHIN (PARTNER): $215,308 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The opportunity trust invests in educators and school systems eager to build the capacity required to make significant and measurable change.

What it reported doing in 2024

Our second strategic priority is focused on increasing access to world-class schools by growing the capacity of our most successful schools, launching new and innovative schools, strengthening existing schools with conditions for sustained success, and helping districts to methodically transform their lowest performing schools. This program aims to 1) drive toward goal of 25% students in quality seats by expanding investments in new schools, expanding investments to additional schools, and maintaining investments in high performing charters, 2) catalyze support for district autonomous models through community design and post-secondary intermediary initiative, and 3) explore partnerships with seven county districts representing 27k students enrolled in low-quality schools.

Operating model

Revenue model: Donor-supported. 75% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model: Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 63% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

Financial Efficiency: 96
Transparency & Controls: 76
Accountability: 95
Sustainability: 32
Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

Mission deployment rate: 95.4%; rating input score 95
Program expense ratio: 95.6%; rating input score 96
Fundraising efficiency: $1,201.22 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 10th 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: 99.3%; rating input score 99; 33rd 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; 66th 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: 0.2%; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.19; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings
Officer compensation ratio: 7.3%; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

Program expense growth: 23.8% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
Revenue growth: 19.4% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
Asset growth: 3.3% per year; rating input score 100; 25th percentile among comparable filings

Details

Where the money goes: 95.4% of revenue deployed · 95.6% of spending went to programs
Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $20.6M in reported program spending
Leadership: top reported pay $441K · 14 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $1.1M reported
Consistency: 29 of 30 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
Filing history: 7 filing years from 2018 to 2024
Contacts: How to reach this organization
Money network: 43 filed money-flow records
Related organizations: 9 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.

Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 33/100.
High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 4/100.
Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 34/100.