Alder Grove Charter School

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
205073440
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Eureka, CA, USA
Phone
7072680854
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Charter Schools

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$9,078,195
Expenses
$8,409,234
Assets
$11,422,971
Liabilities
$2,727,464

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MATT WILTON (PRESIDENT)
  • SARAH WELTSCH (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • TIMOTHY WARNER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • TIMOTHY WARNER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $232,352 total reported compensation
  • RANDI MEAD (EDUCATOR): $194,698 total reported compensation
  • NICHOLE DOLLARHIDE (SPED DIRECTOR): $194,119 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Alder grove charter school commitment is to deliver personalized learning through strong family, educator, and community partnerships that empower students to achieve academic excellence and foster active citizenship.

What it reported doing in 2024

Alder grove charter school serves students in grades kindergarten through twelve who reside in the following California counties: humboldt, del norte, siskiyou, trinity and mendocino. The organization served 482 students for 175 instructional days in 2024-2025.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 97% 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 expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 73
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 48
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 80.1%; rating input score 80
  • Program expense ratio: 86%; rating input score 86
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 7.4%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.36; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.24; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 13.9%; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 11.5% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 10.6% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 16.5% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 80.1% of revenue deployed · 86% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $7.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $232K · 11 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 28 of 28 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 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: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 57/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 48/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 21/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 40/100.
  • Review — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization could not be resolved against the register, so the check is unfinished.