Voluntary Interdistrict Choice Corporation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
431853926
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
St. Louis, MO, US
Phone
(314) 721-8422
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fund Raising and/or Fund Distribution

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$31,106,119
Expenses
$28,064,469
Assets
$31,744,071
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Dr Travis Bracht (Board President)
  • Dr Tim Dilg (Board Vice-President)
  • Mr Paul Northington (Chief Executive Officer)

Highest reported compensation

  • Mrs Lisa Gray (Secretary): $84,372 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

VICC is committed to building relationships, promoting diversity and providing choice while enriching lives through quality educational experiences.

What it reported doing in 2024

Reimbursement to participating public school districts for all or a portion of their cost of providing educational services (i.e. tuition payments) during the 2024/25 school year to eligible non-resident students (grades K-12) who voluntarily transfer between districts pursuant to provisions of the 1999 St. Louis Desegregation Settlement Agreement by order of the Eastern District Federal Court.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 92% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 48% for direct work, and 52% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 81
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 66
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 88.1%; rating input score 88
  • Program expense ratio: 97%; rating input score 97
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd 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: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 9.8%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.13; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0.3%; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -3.8% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -5.7% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 21.6% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 1 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 88.1% of revenue deployed · 97% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $27.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $84K · 15 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 3 contractors listed · $13.8M reported
  • Consistency: 42 of 42 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 14 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 13 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 41/100.