Great Oak Leadership Academic Society

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
201127880
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2018
Forms available
Form 990 2018
Location
Temecula, CA, USA
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Leadership Development

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,476,931
Expenses
$1,592,562
Assets
$527,242
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2018. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Jessica Aviles (President)
  • Susan Johnson (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Dan Segura (Director)
  • Gwen Conroy (Director)
  • Adam Bente (Director)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2018. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The mission of Great Oak Academic Leadership Society is to expand and enrich the educational experience of the students at Great Oak High School.

What it reported doing in 2018

This expense was a donation to Great Oak High School and to Temecula Valley Unified School District from some of the fifty Parent Support Groups to help pay for additional coaches and expenses that are not covered by TVUSD in order to enhance the experience of the students participating in sports, arts, academic and extra-curricular activities. The GOALS Parent Support Groups support approximately 2,000 students. Studies have indicated that particpation in school activities increases a students success in school.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 77% for direct work, 22% for grants, and 1% for member benefits.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 92
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 35
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 89.2%; rating input score 89
  • Fundraising efficiency: $20.4 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -7.8%; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.33; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -7.7% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -5% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -3% per year; rating input score 0; 17th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 89.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 5 filed program accomplishments · $1.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 20 of 22 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2015 to 2018
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 18/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 18/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.
  • High — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization is not authorized to operate as a charity in California.