Sela Public Charter School

Legal name: Dc Hebrew Language Charter School

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
452625029
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Washington, DC, US
Phone
(202) 670-7352
Rating
84
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Charter Schools
Affiliation
Judaism

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$10,252,095
Expenses
$8,570,183
Assets
$17,170,584
Liabilities
$12,406,873

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • JOSHUA A BORK (HEAD OF SCHO): $158,206 total reported compensation
  • RYAN BENJAMIN (DIR. OF OPER): $149,522 total reported compensation
  • MARKUS TOWNSEND (DIR. OF STUD): $127,753 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Sela PCS offers children of all ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds in the District of Columbia, from Pre-K to 5th grade, the opportunity to achieve academic excellence in a safe, nurturing environment that focuses on dual-language instruction in English and Hebrew, promotes the value of diversity and provides skills for engaging with the world.

What it reported doing in 2024

Sela pcs is founded on the premise that fluency in more than one language develops a greater ability to communicate with and to understand other cultures. As a dual-language school committed to immersion, sela pcs helps students achieve language proficiency in two languages - including reading and oral proficiency - and sets high learning standards for both english language arts and hebrew language, choosing curricula that provide its teachers with the instructional resources to successfully develop these skills and abilities in its students.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 84% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Liabilities are high compared with assets and reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 81
  • Transparency & Controls: 79
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 62
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 74.7%; rating input score 75
  • Program expense ratio: 91.6%; rating input score 92
  • Fundraising efficiency: $48.39 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • 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; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 16.4%; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.72; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.4%; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 12.8% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 14.5% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 27.6% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 1 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 74.7% of revenue deployed · 91.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $7.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $158K · 15 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 3 contractors listed · $841K reported
  • Consistency: 30 of 30 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.

  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 17/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 40/100.