nonprofit college-application platform

Common App

A nonprofit platform used by students to apply to more than a thousand colleges and universities through a shared application. Common App scores well because it reduces duplicate application labor and publishes access-oriented reports, though college admissions pressure and student-data centralization still limit it.

Why this matters: Common App is one of the few admissions gatekeepers that materially reduces friction rather than adding a new toll.

Letter grade B Qualified High confidence (AI) Rubric gcd-rubric-v1 Last reviewed May 12, 2026

Final Score 48* B - Qualified

BQUALIFIED48 pts

* Tentative scaffolding score. Not human-checked or final.

Base Material48

Bonus+5

Cap66No structure cap

After Cap53

Penalties-5

!Not Verified

Represent this organization?

Request verification to have the evidence record checked against primary materials and organization-supplied documents. Verification does not buy a higher score; scores change only when review finds factual errors, omissions, or miscalibration.

Request verification

Evaluation Overview

B - Qualified

The score turns mainly on Extraction, with the largest penalty coming from Accountability Opacity.

Strengths

Extraction7/10
Ownership6/10
Solidarity with the Unemployed6/7

Penalties

Accountability Opacity-2
Youth Capture-1
Identity Capture-1
Surveillance Capture-1

Evidence state

ConfidenceHigh confidence (AI)
ThoroughnessDeveloped (AI)
Linked claims17
Direct axis claims17
Coverage17/17

Scoring Axes

Axis	Score	Why this score
Ownership ? Control rights: shareholder-dominated at 0, worker cooperative control at 10.	6 / 10	Common App's public record identifies its ownership form, institutional type, or public/private/nonprofit/cooperative structure in the education category. Common App's public record identifies its ownership form, institutional type, or public/private/nonprofit/cooperative structure in the education category. On Ownership, Common App sits in the middle because the structure has real public, nonprofit, or service value, but users still do not hold decisive control over prices, access rules, quality, or institutional priorities. That places it above ordinary shareholder firms but below democratic or member-owned alternatives. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Coverage-gap batch calibrated across tax filing, utilities, housing, storage, healthcare systems, and childcare/youth institutions. Linked evidence Common App's public record identifies its ownership form, institutional type, or public/private/nonprofit/cooperative structure in the education category. [1] context Common App's public record indicates whether binding control sits with shareholders, executives, members, public officials, nonprofit boards, residents, patients, or customers. [2] context Common App's model determines whether money flows primarily to investors and owners or back toward users, members, public value, community services, affordability, or mission delivery. [3] context Common App's public materials do not show ordinary workers holding full binding democratic control over the institution. [4] context Common App operates in an everyday-need category where job loss, illness, rent pressure, family-care obligations, tax compliance, utility dependence, or household instability affects bargaining power. [5] context Common App's product or service can absorb real household, civic, care, housing, energy, or tax-compliance risk, but the record also shows who bears costs when the institution fails or prices rise. [6] context Common App operates in a market where customers, tenants, patients, taxpayers, utility users, parents, or community members often face switching costs, asymmetric information, or limited choice. [7] context Common App's core service has practical everyday utility, but its integrity depends on pricing, safety, transparency, access, quality, data handling, and accountability. [8] context Common App's scale or category makes its decisions consequential for ordinary U.S. households, patients, tenants, parents, taxpayers, utility customers, or communities. [9]
Governance ? Binding decision authority: centralized control at 0, democratic stakeholder control at 10.	5 / 10	Common App's public record indicates whether binding control sits with shareholders, executives, members, public officials, nonprofit boards, residents, patients, or customers. Common App's public record indicates whether binding control sits with shareholders, executives, members, public officials, nonprofit boards, residents, patients, or customers. On Governance, Common App sits in the middle because the structure has real public, nonprofit, or service value, but users still do not hold decisive control over prices, access rules, quality, or institutional priorities. That places it above ordinary shareholder firms but below democratic or member-owned alternatives. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Coverage-gap batch calibrated across tax filing, utilities, housing, storage, healthcare systems, and childcare/youth institutions. Linked evidence context Common App's public record identifies its ownership form, institutional type, or public/private/nonprofit/cooperative structure in the education category. [1] Common App's public record indicates whether binding control sits with shareholders, executives, members, public officials, nonprofit boards, residents, patients, or customers. [2] context Common App's model determines whether money flows primarily to investors and owners or back toward users, members, public value, community services, affordability, or mission delivery. [3] context Common App's public materials do not show ordinary workers holding full binding democratic control over the institution. [4] context Common App operates in an everyday-need category where job loss, illness, rent pressure, family-care obligations, tax compliance, utility dependence, or household instability affects bargaining power. [5] context Common App's product or service can absorb real household, civic, care, housing, energy, or tax-compliance risk, but the record also shows who bears costs when the institution fails or prices rise. [6] context Common App operates in a market where customers, tenants, patients, taxpayers, utility users, parents, or community members often face switching costs, asymmetric information, or limited choice. [7] context Common App's core service has practical everyday utility, but its integrity depends on pricing, safety, transparency, access, quality, data handling, and accountability. [8] context Common App's scale or category makes its decisions consequential for ordinary U.S. households, patients, tenants, parents, taxpayers, utility customers, or communities. [9]
Extraction ? Surplus allocation, wage share, CEO pay ratio, margins, and structured extraction judgment.	7 / 10	Common App's model determines whether money flows primarily to investors and owners or back toward users, members, public value, community services, affordability, or mission delivery. Common App's model determines whether money flows primarily to investors and owners or back toward users, members, public value, community services, affordability, or mission delivery. On Extraction, Common App belongs near the top of this pass because its cooperative, public, volunteer, or nonprofit structure moves power and value closer to the people the service exists to help. It remains below the strongest directory entries where scale, bureaucracy, local variation, utility dependence, or public-program limits still constrain user power. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Coverage-gap batch calibrated across tax filing, utilities, housing, storage, healthcare systems, and childcare/youth institutions. Linked evidence context Common App's public record identifies its ownership form, institutional type, or public/private/nonprofit/cooperative structure in the education category. [1] context Common App's public record indicates whether binding control sits with shareholders, executives, members, public officials, nonprofit boards, residents, patients, or customers. [2] Common App's model determines whether money flows primarily to investors and owners or back toward users, members, public value, community services, affordability, or mission delivery. [3] context Common App's public materials do not show ordinary workers holding full binding democratic control over the institution. [4] context Common App operates in an everyday-need category where job loss, illness, rent pressure, family-care obligations, tax compliance, utility dependence, or household instability affects bargaining power. [5] context Common App's product or service can absorb real household, civic, care, housing, energy, or tax-compliance risk, but the record also shows who bears costs when the institution fails or prices rise. [6] context Common App operates in a market where customers, tenants, patients, taxpayers, utility users, parents, or community members often face switching costs, asymmetric information, or limited choice. [7] context Common App's core service has practical everyday utility, but its integrity depends on pricing, safety, transparency, access, quality, data handling, and accountability. [8] context Common App's scale or category makes its decisions consequential for ordinary U.S. households, patients, tenants, parents, taxpayers, utility customers, or communities. [9]
Labor Sovereignty ? Worker power: coercive conditions at 0, co-determination or ownership at 7. Employee dissatisfaction matters only when source-backed evidence shows concrete limits on worker agency, such as coercive scheduling, retaliation, wage theft, harassment, unsafe conditions, suppression of worker voice, or extreme turnover.	4 / 7	Common App's linked public materials do not show ordinary workers holding full binding democratic control over the institution. Common App's linked public materials do not show ordinary workers holding full binding democratic control over the institution. On Labor Sovereignty, Common App sits in the middle because the structure has real public, nonprofit, or service value, but users still do not hold decisive control over prices, access rules, quality, or institutional priorities. That places it above ordinary shareholder firms but below democratic or member-owned alternatives. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Coverage-gap batch calibrated across tax filing, utilities, housing, storage, healthcare systems, and childcare/youth institutions. Linked evidence context Common App's public record identifies its ownership form, institutional type, or public/private/nonprofit/cooperative structure in the education category. [1] context Common App's public record indicates whether binding control sits with shareholders, executives, members, public officials, nonprofit boards, residents, patients, or customers. [2] context Common App's model determines whether money flows primarily to investors and owners or back toward users, members, public value, community services, affordability, or mission delivery. [3] Common App's public materials do not show ordinary workers holding full binding democratic control over the institution. [4] context Common App operates in an everyday-need category where job loss, illness, rent pressure, family-care obligations, tax compliance, utility dependence, or household instability affects bargaining power. [5] context Common App's product or service can absorb real household, civic, care, housing, energy, or tax-compliance risk, but the record also shows who bears costs when the institution fails or prices rise. [6] context Common App operates in a market where customers, tenants, patients, taxpayers, utility users, parents, or community members often face switching costs, asymmetric information, or limited choice. [7] context Common App's core service has practical everyday utility, but its integrity depends on pricing, safety, transparency, access, quality, data handling, and accountability. [8] context Common App's scale or category makes its decisions consequential for ordinary U.S. households, patients, tenants, parents, taxpayers, utility customers, or communities. [9]
Solidarity with the Unemployed ? Treatment of exits and nonworkers, including severance, redeployment, and non-competes.	6 / 7	Common App operates in an everyday-need category where job loss, illness, rent pressure, family-care obligations, tax compliance, utility dependence, or household instability affects bargaining power. Common App operates in an everyday-need category where job loss, illness, rent pressure, family-care obligations, tax compliance, utility dependence, or household instability affects bargaining power. On Solidarity with the Unemployed, Common App sits in the middle because the structure has real public, nonprofit, or service value, but users still do not hold decisive control over prices, access rules, quality, or institutional priorities. That places it above ordinary shareholder firms but below democratic or member-owned alternatives. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Coverage-gap batch calibrated across tax filing, utilities, housing, storage, healthcare systems, and childcare/youth institutions. Linked evidence context Common App's public record identifies its ownership form, institutional type, or public/private/nonprofit/cooperative structure in the education category. [1] context Common App's public record indicates whether binding control sits with shareholders, executives, members, public officials, nonprofit boards, residents, patients, or customers. [2] context Common App's model determines whether money flows primarily to investors and owners or back toward users, members, public value, community services, affordability, or mission delivery. [3] context Common App's public materials do not show ordinary workers holding full binding democratic control over the institution. [4] Common App operates in an everyday-need category where job loss, illness, rent pressure, family-care obligations, tax compliance, utility dependence, or household instability affects bargaining power. [5] context Common App's product or service can absorb real household, civic, care, housing, energy, or tax-compliance risk, but the record also shows who bears costs when the institution fails or prices rise. [6] context Common App operates in a market where customers, tenants, patients, taxpayers, utility users, parents, or community members often face switching costs, asymmetric information, or limited choice. [7] context Common App's core service has practical everyday utility, but its integrity depends on pricing, safety, transparency, access, quality, data handling, and accountability. [8] context Common App's scale or category makes its decisions consequential for ordinary U.S. households, patients, tenants, parents, taxpayers, utility customers, or communities. [9]
Loss-Bearing Fidelity ? Willingness to absorb costs to preserve values, workers, users, and public obligations.	5 / 7	Common App's product or service can absorb real household, civic, care, housing, energy, or tax-compliance risk, but the record also shows who bears costs when the institution fails or prices rise. Common App's product or service can absorb real household, civic, care, housing, energy, or tax-compliance risk, but the record also shows who bears costs when the institution fails or prices rise. On Loss-Bearing Fidelity, Common App sits in the middle because the structure has real public, nonprofit, or service value, but users still do not hold decisive control over prices, access rules, quality, or institutional priorities. That places it above ordinary shareholder firms but below democratic or member-owned alternatives. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Coverage-gap batch calibrated across tax filing, utilities, housing, storage, healthcare systems, and childcare/youth institutions. Linked evidence context Common App's public record identifies its ownership form, institutional type, or public/private/nonprofit/cooperative structure in the education category. [1] context Common App's public record indicates whether binding control sits with shareholders, executives, members, public officials, nonprofit boards, residents, patients, or customers. [2] context Common App's model determines whether money flows primarily to investors and owners or back toward users, members, public value, community services, affordability, or mission delivery. [3] context Common App's public materials do not show ordinary workers holding full binding democratic control over the institution. [4] context Common App operates in an everyday-need category where job loss, illness, rent pressure, family-care obligations, tax compliance, utility dependence, or household instability affects bargaining power. [5] Common App's product or service can absorb real household, civic, care, housing, energy, or tax-compliance risk, but the record also shows who bears costs when the institution fails or prices rise. [6] context Common App operates in a market where customers, tenants, patients, taxpayers, utility users, parents, or community members often face switching costs, asymmetric information, or limited choice. [7] context Common App's core service has practical everyday utility, but its integrity depends on pricing, safety, transparency, access, quality, data handling, and accountability. [8] context Common App's scale or category makes its decisions consequential for ordinary U.S. households, patients, tenants, parents, taxpayers, utility customers, or communities. [9]
Market Conduct ? Pricing fairness, switching costs, lock-in, and rent extraction.	5 / 5	Common App operates in a market where customers, tenants, patients, taxpayers, utility users, parents, or community members often face switching costs, asymmetric information, or limited choice. Common App operates in a market where customers, tenants, patients, taxpayers, utility users, parents, or community members often face switching costs, asymmetric information, or limited choice. On Market Conduct, Common App sits in the middle because the structure has real public, nonprofit, or service value, but users still do not hold decisive control over prices, access rules, quality, or institutional priorities. That places it above ordinary shareholder firms but below democratic or member-owned alternatives. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Coverage-gap batch calibrated across tax filing, utilities, housing, storage, healthcare systems, and childcare/youth institutions. Linked evidence context Common App's public record identifies its ownership form, institutional type, or public/private/nonprofit/cooperative structure in the education category. [1] context Common App's public record indicates whether binding control sits with shareholders, executives, members, public officials, nonprofit boards, residents, patients, or customers. [2] context Common App's model determines whether money flows primarily to investors and owners or back toward users, members, public value, community services, affordability, or mission delivery. [3] context Common App's public materials do not show ordinary workers holding full binding democratic control over the institution. [4] context Common App operates in an everyday-need category where job loss, illness, rent pressure, family-care obligations, tax compliance, utility dependence, or household instability affects bargaining power. [5] context Common App's product or service can absorb real household, civic, care, housing, energy, or tax-compliance risk, but the record also shows who bears costs when the institution fails or prices rise. [6] Common App operates in a market where customers, tenants, patients, taxpayers, utility users, parents, or community members often face switching costs, asymmetric information, or limited choice. [7] context Common App's core service has practical everyday utility, but its integrity depends on pricing, safety, transparency, access, quality, data handling, and accountability. [8] context Common App's scale or category makes its decisions consequential for ordinary U.S. households, patients, tenants, parents, taxpayers, utility customers, or communities. [9]
Product Integrity ? Preservation of quality rather than degradation for monetization.	5 / 5	Common App's core service has practical everyday utility, but its integrity depends on pricing, safety, transparency, access, quality, data handling, and accountability. Common App's core service has practical everyday utility, but its integrity depends on pricing, safety, transparency, access, quality, data handling, and accountability. On Product Integrity, Common App sits in the middle because the structure has real public, nonprofit, or service value, but users still do not hold decisive control over prices, access rules, quality, or institutional priorities. That places it above ordinary shareholder firms but below democratic or member-owned alternatives. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Coverage-gap batch calibrated across tax filing, utilities, housing, storage, healthcare systems, and childcare/youth institutions. Linked evidence context Common App's public record identifies its ownership form, institutional type, or public/private/nonprofit/cooperative structure in the education category. [1] context Common App's public record indicates whether binding control sits with shareholders, executives, members, public officials, nonprofit boards, residents, patients, or customers. [2] context Common App's model determines whether money flows primarily to investors and owners or back toward users, members, public value, community services, affordability, or mission delivery. [3] context Common App's public materials do not show ordinary workers holding full binding democratic control over the institution. [4] context Common App operates in an everyday-need category where job loss, illness, rent pressure, family-care obligations, tax compliance, utility dependence, or household instability affects bargaining power. [5] context Common App's product or service can absorb real household, civic, care, housing, energy, or tax-compliance risk, but the record also shows who bears costs when the institution fails or prices rise. [6] context Common App operates in a market where customers, tenants, patients, taxpayers, utility users, parents, or community members often face switching costs, asymmetric information, or limited choice. [7] Common App's core service has practical everyday utility, but its integrity depends on pricing, safety, transparency, access, quality, data handling, and accountability. [8] context Common App's scale or category makes its decisions consequential for ordinary U.S. households, patients, tenants, parents, taxpayers, utility customers, or communities. [9]
Scale Integrity ? Whether growth improves or degrades fairness and accountability.	5 / 5	Common App's scale or category makes its decisions consequential for ordinary U.S. households, patients, tenants, parents, taxpayers, utility customers, or communities. Common App's scale or category makes its decisions consequential for ordinary U.S. households, patients, tenants, parents, taxpayers, utility customers, or communities. On Scale Integrity, Common App sits in the middle because the structure has real public, nonprofit, or service value, but users still do not hold decisive control over prices, access rules, quality, or institutional priorities. That places it above ordinary shareholder firms but below democratic or member-owned alternatives. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Coverage-gap batch calibrated across tax filing, utilities, housing, storage, healthcare systems, and childcare/youth institutions. Linked evidence context Common App's public record identifies its ownership form, institutional type, or public/private/nonprofit/cooperative structure in the education category. [1] context Common App's public record indicates whether binding control sits with shareholders, executives, members, public officials, nonprofit boards, residents, patients, or customers. [2] context Common App's model determines whether money flows primarily to investors and owners or back toward users, members, public value, community services, affordability, or mission delivery. [3] context Common App's public materials do not show ordinary workers holding full binding democratic control over the institution. [4] context Common App operates in an everyday-need category where job loss, illness, rent pressure, family-care obligations, tax compliance, utility dependence, or household instability affects bargaining power. [5] context Common App's product or service can absorb real household, civic, care, housing, energy, or tax-compliance risk, but the record also shows who bears costs when the institution fails or prices rise. [6] context Common App operates in a market where customers, tenants, patients, taxpayers, utility users, parents, or community members often face switching costs, asymmetric information, or limited choice. [7] context Common App's core service has practical everyday utility, but its integrity depends on pricing, safety, transparency, access, quality, data handling, and accountability. [8] Common App's scale or category makes its decisions consequential for ordinary U.S. households, patients, tenants, parents, taxpayers, utility customers, or communities. [9]

Penalties

Penalty	Applied	Why this penalty
Youth Capture ? Manipulative youth-directed marketing, youth-data or attention monetization, collectible/add-on traps, parasocial or identity capture, surprise mechanics, or treating young people as lower-disclosure consumers. Making useful toys or welcoming children is not itself penalized. Range: -5 to 0.	-1	Common App's public record makes Youth Capture relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability. Common App's public record makes Youth Capture relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability. This warrants a Youth Capture penalty because the evidence shows harm or risk tied to the institution's actual role: housing, tax, utility, healthcare, storage, or childcare power over people with limited alternatives. The penalty is calibrated to this entity's severity rather than assigned automatically to the whole category. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Coverage-gap batch calibrated across tax filing, utilities, housing, storage, healthcare systems, and childcare/youth institutions. Linked evidence Common App's public record makes Youth Capture relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability. [14]
Accountability Opacity ? Material opacity, reputation laundering, or hidden accountability structures that prevent public accountability. Range: -2 to 0.	-2	Common App's public record makes Accountability Opacity relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability. Common App's public record makes Accountability Opacity relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability. This warrants a Accountability Opacity penalty because the evidence shows harm or risk tied to the institution's actual role: housing, tax, utility, healthcare, storage, or childcare power over people with limited alternatives. The penalty is calibrated to this entity's severity rather than assigned automatically to the whole category. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Coverage-gap batch calibrated across tax filing, utilities, housing, storage, healthcare systems, and childcare/youth institutions. Linked evidence Common App's public record makes Accountability Opacity relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability. [15]
Identity Capture ? Customer pressure, employee pressure, and pervasive identity saturation. Range: -3 to 0.	-1	Common App's public record makes Identity Capture relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability. Common App's public record makes Identity Capture relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability. This warrants a Identity Capture penalty because the evidence shows harm or risk tied to the institution's actual role: housing, tax, utility, healthcare, storage, or childcare power over people with limited alternatives. The penalty is calibrated to this entity's severity rather than assigned automatically to the whole category. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Coverage-gap batch calibrated across tax filing, utilities, housing, storage, healthcare systems, and childcare/youth institutions. Linked evidence Common App's public record makes Identity Capture relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability. [16]
Surveillance Capture ? Invasive surveillance, unreasonably non-optional tracking, facial recognition, biometric identification, or AI behavior scanning of customers, workers, bystanders, or the public. Range: -5 to 0.	-1	Common App's public record makes Surveillance Capture relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability. Common App's public record makes Surveillance Capture relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability. This warrants a Surveillance Capture penalty because the evidence shows harm or risk tied to the institution's actual role: housing, tax, utility, healthcare, storage, or childcare power over people with limited alternatives. The penalty is calibrated to this entity's severity rather than assigned automatically to the whole category. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Coverage-gap batch calibrated across tax filing, utilities, housing, storage, healthcare systems, and childcare/youth institutions. Linked evidence Common App's public record makes Surveillance Capture relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability. [17]

Bonus Credits

Bonus	Credit	Why this credit
Openness to Dissent ? Credit for tolerating internal, user, customer, worker, and public dissent without retaliation, capture, or viewpoint laundering.	1 / 3	Common App's public record makes Openness to Dissent relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability. Common App's public record makes Openness to Dissent relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability. This earns limited Openness to Dissent credit because the record shows a concrete public, cooperative, affordability, access, transparency, or community-accountability feature beyond ordinary market service. The credit stays limited unless affected users can reliably exercise durable power over the institution. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Coverage-gap batch calibrated across tax filing, utilities, housing, storage, healthcare systems, and childcare/youth institutions. Linked evidence Common App's public record makes Openness to Dissent relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability. [10]
Constitutional Spirit ? Credit for respecting constitutional rights and civil-liberties norms even where private law does not strictly require it.	1 / 3	Common App's public record makes Constitutional Spirit relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability. Common App's public record makes Constitutional Spirit relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability. This earns limited Constitutional Spirit credit because the record shows a concrete public, cooperative, affordability, access, transparency, or community-accountability feature beyond ordinary market service. The credit stays limited unless affected users can reliably exercise durable power over the institution. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Coverage-gap batch calibrated across tax filing, utilities, housing, storage, healthcare systems, and childcare/youth institutions. Linked evidence Common App's public record makes Constitutional Spirit relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability. [11]
Good Deal ? Credit for unusually fair value: durable quality, fair pricing, low lock-in, and clear customer surplus.	2 / 3	Common App's public record makes Good Deal relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability. Common App's public record makes Good Deal relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability. This earns limited Good Deal credit because the record shows a concrete public, cooperative, affordability, access, transparency, or community-accountability feature beyond ordinary market service. The credit stays limited unless affected users can reliably exercise durable power over the institution. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Coverage-gap batch calibrated across tax filing, utilities, housing, storage, healthcare systems, and childcare/youth institutions. Linked evidence Common App's public record makes Good Deal relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability. [12]
Cost Transparency ? Credit for clear posted prices, all-in fees, unit costs, public rate cards, margin/cost visibility, or surplus-allocation transparency, especially in markets where opaque quotes, hidden fees, or individualized pricing are normal.	1 / 3	Common App's public record makes Cost Transparency relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability. Common App's public record makes Cost Transparency relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability. This earns limited Cost Transparency credit because the record shows a concrete public, cooperative, affordability, access, transparency, or community-accountability feature beyond ordinary market service. The credit stays limited unless affected users can reliably exercise durable power over the institution. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Coverage-gap batch calibrated across tax filing, utilities, housing, storage, healthcare systems, and childcare/youth institutions. Linked evidence Common App's public record makes Cost Transparency relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability. [13]

Confidence Basis

Confidence is computed from the evidence trail and review state, not typed into the profile by hand.

High 80/100

17 verified linked claims 17 direct axis claims 0 disputed claims 17/17 components covered

This confidence label measures the source-backed evidence trail. AI-scaffolded scores remain tentative until human review.

Claim confidence 16/20

17 verified linked claims

Source quality 11/18

Best source per verified claim, weighted by institutional reliability

Direct axis-specific claims 14/18

17 direct claims across 17 active components

Dispute load 12/12

0 disputed claims on this entity

Recency 10/10

Newest accepted timestamp: May 13, 2026

Reviewer status 7/12

Human-reviewed components score higher than AI scaffolding

Component coverage 10/10

17/17 evidence-bearing components have direct support

Evidence State

Profile stateAI draft / human-pending

VerificationUnverified

ConfidenceHigh confidence (AI)

ThoroughnessDeveloped (AI)

Correction routeUse “Challenge this rating” for factual errors, missing counterevidence, source problems, or calculation mistakes.

Company responseCompany representatives can submit source-backed corrections; payment never changes scores or reviewer authority.

Claims and Sources

Claims are the evidence record. Each claim needs a source link, axis category, status, confidence level, and timestamp before it can support a score.

* Tentative scaffolding score. Not human-checked or final.

1Common App's public record identifies its ownership form, institutional type, or public/private/nonprofit/cooperative structure in the education category.

Ownership Verified High confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Common App aboutOfficial self-description · 68%

2Common App's public record indicates whether binding control sits with shareholders, executives, members, public officials, nonprofit boards, residents, patients, or customers.

Governance Verified High confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Common App aboutOfficial self-description · 68%

3Common App's model determines whether money flows primarily to investors and owners or back toward users, members, public value, community services, affordability, or mission delivery.

Extraction Verified High confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Common App aboutOfficial self-description · 68%

4Common App's public materials do not show ordinary workers holding full binding democratic control over the institution.

Labor Sovereignty Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Common App aboutOfficial self-description · 68%

5Common App operates in an everyday-need category where job loss, illness, rent pressure, family-care obligations, tax compliance, utility dependence, or household instability affects bargaining power.

Solidarity Unemployed Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Common App reports and insightsGeneral web source · 58%

6Common App's product or service can absorb real household, civic, care, housing, energy, or tax-compliance risk, but the record also shows who bears costs when the institution fails or prices rise.

Loss Bearing Fidelity Verified High confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Common App aboutOfficial self-description · 68%

7Common App operates in a market where customers, tenants, patients, taxpayers, utility users, parents, or community members often face switching costs, asymmetric information, or limited choice.

Market Conduct Verified High confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Common App reports and insightsGeneral web source · 58%

8Common App's core service has practical everyday utility, but its integrity depends on pricing, safety, transparency, access, quality, data handling, and accountability.

Product Integrity Verified High confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Common App aboutOfficial self-description · 68%

9Common App's scale or category makes its decisions consequential for ordinary U.S. households, patients, tenants, parents, taxpayers, utility customers, or communities.

Scale Integrity Verified High confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Common App reports and insightsGeneral web source · 58%

10Common App's public record makes Openness to Dissent relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability.

Openness To Dissent Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Common App reports and insightsGeneral web source · 58%

11Common App's public record makes Constitutional Spirit relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability.

Constitutional Spirit Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Common App reports and insightsGeneral web source · 58%

12Common App's public record makes Good Deal relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability.

Good Deal Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Common App reports and insightsGeneral web source · 58%

13Common App's public record makes Cost Transparency relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability.

Cost Transparency Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Common App reports and insightsGeneral web source · 58%

14Common App's public record makes Youth Capture relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability.

Youth Capture Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Common App reports and insightsGeneral web source · 58%

15Common App's public record makes Accountability Opacity relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability.

Accountability Opacity Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Common App reports and insightsGeneral web source · 58%

16Common App's public record makes Identity Capture relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability.

Identity Capture Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Common App reports and insightsGeneral web source · 58%

17Common App's public record makes Surveillance Capture relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability.

Surveillance Capture Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Common App reports and insightsGeneral web source · 58%

Alternatives

Competitors

AGOOD54 Child Care Aware of America nonprofit childcare resource and referral organization · same market AGOOD52 Boys & Girls Clubs of America nonprofit youth-development federation · same market AGOOD51 YMCA of the USA nonprofit youth, childcare, fitness, and community-services network · same market DEXTRACTIVE32 National Student Clearinghouse nonprofit education-data and verification organization · same market DEXTRACTIVE29 ETS nonprofit educational testing and assessment organization · same market DEXTRACTIVE15 Student PIRGs student public-interest organizing network · same market DEXTRACTIVE14 Bright Horizons public employer-sponsored childcare and education company · same market DEXTRACTIVE14 College Board nonprofit college-admissions and assessment organization · same market

Help Improve This Profile

Submit source-backed evidence or challenge a specific claim, source, axis value, or calculation below.

How This Page Is Maintained

Evidence comes in through contributors, is checked by verifiers, and is synthesized by reviewers. Founder authority remains narrow and visible; scores recalculate when verified claims or the rubric change.

Civic Note

Incorporation, limited liability, market access, and other institutional privileges are public grants. Good Companies Directory treats those privileges as conditional on accountability to workers, users, communities, and the public.

Submit evidence for Common App Add one source-backed fact for review.

Challenge this rating Point to a specific score, claim, source, or calculation problem.

Audit Log

Recent public changes for this company or group. The full audit log is part of the Transparency record.

No company-specific audit entries have been published yet.

View Full Audit Log