Great Public Schools Now

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
474962715
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Los Angeles, CA, USA
Phone
2134522800
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fund Raising and/or Fund Distribution

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,716,921
Expenses
$6,437,514
Assets
$7,046,818
Liabilities
$538,388

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

18 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ANA F PONCE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • ANA TERESA DAHAN (EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT)
  • ADRIAN SANDOVAL (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • MELISSA GONZALEZ (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • VEREAUX REYNOLDS (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • ANA F PONCE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $348,734 total reported compensation
  • ANA TERESA DAHAN (EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT): $283,952 total reported compensation
  • MONICA GARCIA (SENIOR ADVISOR): $204,830 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The organization invests in schools, organizations and initiatives that catalyze excellence in public education, convenes leaders and uplifts public understanding to advocate for great public schools.

What it reported doing in 2025

Student impact: our student impact initiative, formerly education recovery, expands access to high-quality academic, enrichment, and career-connected opportunities for students across los angeles. This includes partnerships that deliver free summer programming for students in low-income communities, increase access to meaningful high school internships with local employers, and strengthen out-of-school time programs through targeted professional development for staff, ensuring students experience engaging, high-quality learning beyond the school day.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 91% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 58% for direct work, and 42% for grants.

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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 86
  • Transparency & Controls: 72
  • Accountability: 86
  • Sustainability: 19
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 79.1%; rating input score 79
  • Fundraising efficiency: $11.17 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 98%; rating input score 98; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • 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: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -73.2%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.09; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.08; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 26.8%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -7% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -16.9% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -6.5% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 79.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $5.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $349K · 18 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $110K reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 32 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2016 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 61 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 52 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.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 9 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 40/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 1/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 37/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 10/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 53/100.