Collegiate Charter High School of Los Angeles
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 465580167
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2015–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Los Angeles, CA, USA
- Phone
- 2132010440
- Rating
- 76
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Secondary, High School
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $3,284,754
- Expenses
- $3,930,944
- Assets
- $1,063,759
- Liabilities
- $908,527
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
10 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- EDWARD MORRIS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- EDWARD MORRIS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $168,147 total reported compensation
- HECTOR ALVARADO (DIRECTOR OF PROGRAMS/SCHOL): $123,541 total reported compensation
- EVELYN RODRIGUEZ (DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL OPERATI): $115,711 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Collegiate charter high of los angeles will prepare all students in grades 9 through 12 for success in four-year colleges, professional careers, leadership in their communities, and lives of opportunity.
What it reported doing in 2024
The charter school is a college preparatory high school in east los angeles that served 141 students in grades nine through twelve. With a commitment to hard work and focus, every student who chooses collegiate will graduate ready to succeed at the college of their choice.effective july 1, 2025, the organization transferred its charter school operations to a separate, unrelated, nonprofit organization, equitas academy charter school, inc.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Grant-funded. 95% 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. Expenses are high relative to revenue and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 74
- Transparency & Controls: 74
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 10
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 88.4%; rating input score 88
- Program expense ratio: 73.8%; rating input score 74
- 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: Pass
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- 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: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Fail
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -19.7%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.27; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.85; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 10.4%; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 11.2% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 10.2% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 16.4% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 88.4% of revenue deployed · 73.8% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.9M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $168K · 10 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 4 contractors listed · $670K reported
- Consistency: 29 of 29 current checks pass
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
- Filing history: 10 filing years from 2015 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 3 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.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 7/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 8/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Audit committee oversight not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 9/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 29/100.
- Review — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization could not be resolved against the register, so the check is unfinished.