Environmental Charter Schools
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 330920934
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2012–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Redondo Beach, CA, USA
- Phone
- 310-214-3408
- Rating
- 84
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Secondary, High School
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $34,465,099
- Expenses
- $34,224,723
- Assets
- $65,355,042
- Liabilities
- $51,254,957
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
21 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- BETSY HAMILTON (PRESIDENT)
Highest reported compensation
- FARNAZ GOLSHANI FLECHNER (SUPERINTENDENT (ENDING 05/2025)): $240,777 total reported compensation
- DANIELLE KELSICK (SUPERINTENDENT (AS OF 05/2025)): $223,554 total reported compensation
- DAVE TREJO (PRINCIPAL): $188,449 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 Environmental Charter Schools (ECS) is to reimagine public education in low-income communities of color to prepare conscious, critical thinkers who are equipped to graduate from college and create a more equitable and sustainable world.
What it reported doing in 2024
Environmental charter schools (ecs) is comprised of four public charter schools serving grades 6-12 located in the south bay and south la communities of lawndale, inglewood, and gardena. The ecs approach focuses on college preparation and environmental and community engagement through interdisciplinary instruction, small learning communities and community partnerships. This approach results in students who are prepared for college, motivated to continue learning and desire to positively contribute to their community. Beyond serving 1,675 students, our goals are to transform public education from within by sharing our best 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
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and liabilities are high compared with assets.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 79
- Transparency & Controls: 85
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 42
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 88.1%; rating input score 88
- Program expense ratio: 88.6%; rating input score 89
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
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: Yes; rating input score 100
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- 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: 0.7%; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.91; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.78; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 5.1%; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 12.8% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 11.4% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 22.8% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 4 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 3 operating locations identified
- Where the money goes: 88.1% of revenue deployed · 88.6% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $30.3M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $241K · 21 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $1.8M reported
- Consistency: 33 of 33 current checks pass
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, executive pay, and related organizations
- Filing history: 13 filing years from 2012 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 10 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
- 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.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 36/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 14/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 50/100.