Able Charter School

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
455425608
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Stockton, CA, USA
Phone
2094781600
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Elementary, Secondary Education, K - 12

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$22,390,267
Expenses
$20,031,919
Assets
$38,033,165
Liabilities
$22,857,663

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ZAYANTE MERRILL (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • CLEM LEE (SUPERINTENDE): $254,669 total reported compensation
  • JOSH REYMAN (DEPUTY SUP.): $211,146 total reported compensation
  • ELLA BLAIR (ASST. SUP OF): $166,604 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Public charter school providing a unique educational experience to student in san joaquin county.

What it reported doing in 2024

Operation of a public charter school which provides education to students in grades k12. Able provides its students with a world class, research based, and rigorous education that exposes students to a challenging and relevant program of study which embraces the diverse learning syles of the students, insures students access to teachers who are experts in their educational fields, and provides a learning environment that inspires the students to perform at their highest academic levels while building a learning community of educators, parents, and students.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 99% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and liabilities are high compared with assets.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 83
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 71
  • Sustainability: 57
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 77.5%; rating input score 78
  • Program expense ratio: 86.6%; rating input score 87
  • Fundraising efficiency: $1,605.7 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd 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: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 10.5%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.9; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.6; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.8%; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 16.5% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 16.9% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 27.2% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 77.5% of revenue deployed · 86.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 7 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $17.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $255K · 14 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $3.1M reported
  • Consistency: 24 of 24 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 8 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 22/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 37/100.
  • Review — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization could not be resolved against the register, so the check is unfinished.