Golden Eagle Charter School

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
201267289
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Mount Shasta, CA, USA
Phone
5309265800
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Elementary, Secondary Education, K - 12

Reported finances

Revenue
$9,034,299
Expenses
$8,480,598
Assets
$5,757,255
Liabilities
$2,180,996

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SUSAN BEALS (PRESIDENT)
  • MARY ROACH (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • DUSTIN REIF (PRESIDENT (RESIGNED 12/2024))
  • SHELLY BLAKELY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • SHELLY BLAKELY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $209,251 total reported compensation
  • ALANA ALTHAUS-CRESSMAN (ASSISTANT EXECUITVE DIRECTOR): $153,976 total reported compensation
  • EILEEN FARNAN (PROGRAM MANAGER/READING SPECIALIST): $144,852 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 golden eagle charter school is to serve students in grades k-12 in siskiyou county and castella, by providing a personalized learning program and supporting parental choice in education in the context of a California standards-based education. Gecs believes that students learn best in a personalized environment that takes into account their specific skills, interests, strengths, and needs.

What it reported doing in 2024

Golden eagle charter school (gecs) is a personalized learning public charter school. Students are assessed upon entry, and a personalized learning plan is developed. This plan takes into account their personal needs, resources, learning styles, talents and abilities. The credentialed teacher (educational facilitator), the parents/ guardians and the student work together to implement this plan. The vision of golden eagle charter school is to provide a learning environment where students, teachers, and families work together to build community, promote academic excellence, and create engaging and inspiring learning experiences.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 99% 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 - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 57
  • Transparency & Controls: 77
  • Accountability: 91
  • Sustainability: 42
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 62.6%; rating input score 63
  • Program expense ratio: 66.6%; rating input score 67
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: 6.1%; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.68; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.38; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6%; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 8.6% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9.6% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 14% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 62.6% of revenue deployed · 66.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $5.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $209K · 9 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $233K reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 29 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2009 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.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 25/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 54/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 28/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 47/100.
  • Review — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization could not be resolved against the register, so the check is unfinished.