Empire Springs Charter School

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
300788260
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Temecula, CA, USA
Phone
9512528800
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Charter Schools

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$27,752,489
Expenses
$28,829,414
Assets
$20,737,842
Liabilities
$6,699,168

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

Leadership & pay

18 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • Tammy A Jackson (SR Dir Indiv Learn): $183,819 total reported compensation
  • Jacqueline B York (SR Dir Ed Prgms): $168,120 total reported compensation
  • Jackie Dee (Principal): $160,689 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Our mission is to foster the innate curiosity of our students, empower their parents, and promote optimum learning by collaboratively developing a personalized learning program for each student.

What it reported doing in 2024

Operation of a California public charter school: during 2024-25, empire springs charter school (escs) served approximately 1,585 students. Escs is a parent choice school where the community is the classroom. Escs is open to all students in grade tk-12. Escs believes that learning best occurs when students are educated through a personalized learning (pl), goal-oriented curriculum which is developed utilizing home-based learning models, internships, community-based educational programs, group seminars, distance learning via current technology, supplemental learning projects, and current educational research.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 92% 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 most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 71
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 29
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 81.4%; rating input score 81
  • Program expense ratio: 78.1%; rating input score 78
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • 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; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • 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: -3.9%; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.72; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.32; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 3.5%; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 14.5% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 13.9% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 19.3% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 81.4% of revenue deployed · 78.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $22.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $184K · 18 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 23 of 23 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2013 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 18 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 4 filed related-organization links
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 19/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 25/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Whistleblower policy not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 44/100.