Architect Construction & Engineering
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 352362486
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2011–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Camarillo, CA, USA
- Phone
- 8054371410
- Rating
- 74
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Charter Schools
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $4,269,754
- Expenses
- $4,030,055
- Assets
- $1,928,158
- Liabilities
- $574,242
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
10 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- DAVID CARLSON (BOARD PRESIDENT)
Highest reported compensation
- JOHN MIDDLETON (PRINCIPAL): $203,951 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 mission of ace is to provide high school students and alternative educational opportunity to explore construction related careers through rigorous contextual, hands-on curriculum that prepares them for direct entry into college, professional apprenticeship programs, or a career.
What it reported doing in 2024
Architecture construction and engineering (ace) charter high school is a public school with grades from 9th to 12th grade. The school served on average 230 students based on ada. The mission and vision of ace is to provide a scientific, technical, analytical, and liberal arts based high school experience from a contextually global mindset and through progressive and collaborative teaching practices.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Grant-funded. 98% 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. Total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown and expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 65
- Transparency & Controls: 74
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 40
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 72.4%; rating input score 72
- Program expense ratio: 76.4%; rating input score 76
- 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: Yes; rating input score 100
- 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: NotApplicable
- 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: 5.6%; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.48; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.3; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 5.1%; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 8.5% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 8.2% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 10.6% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 72.4% of revenue deployed · 76.4% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $3.1M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $204K · 10 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $708K reported
- Consistency: 27 of 27 current checks pass
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
- Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
- 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.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 17/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 52/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 34/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 53/100.
- Review — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization could not be resolved against the register, so the check is unfinished.