Excel Academy Charter Schools

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
474121751
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Irvine, CA, USA
Phone
(949) 409-6000
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Elementary, Secondary Education, K - 12

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$24,998,444
Expenses
$23,014,012
Assets
$13,606,357
Liabilities
$1,940,862

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • HEIDI M GASCA (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • WILLIAM HALL (PRESIDENT)
  • MICHAEL HUMPREY (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • HEIDI M GASCA (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $278,868 total reported compensation
  • CLAUDIO SORRERA (DIRECTOR OF BUSINESS SERVICES): $275,399 total reported compensation
  • LARA C ULMER (ASSISTANT DIR OF SPED): $240,174 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Excel Academy Charter Schools provides a tuition-free, personalized education program for TK-12 students in California, offering in-person and virtual learning paths.

What it reported doing in 2024

Offering an independent study personalized learning model for students in grades tk-12. Allowing parents to select a wide variety of educational resources and materials from approved content and community providers using state instructional fund. The organization served approximately 1,710 students.

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 reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 76
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 77
  • Sustainability: 47
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 83.2%; rating input score 83
  • Program expense ratio: 90.1%; rating input score 90
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd 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: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 60%; rating input score 60; 10th 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: 7.9%; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.59; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.14; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 7.4%; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.1% per year; rating input score 100; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3% per year; rating input score 100; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 12.1% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 3 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 83.2% of revenue deployed · 90.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 5 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $20.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $279K · 12 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 32 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2015 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 12 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.

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 20/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 34/100.
  • Review — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization could not be resolved against the register, so the check is unfinished.