Ivy Tech Charter School

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
271558172
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2009
Location
Moorpark, CA, USA
Phone
8052225188
Rating
79
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Charter Schools

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,684,527
Expenses
$2,715,792
Assets
$5,450,353
Liabilities
$2,287,798

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • GEOFFREY FRANKL (DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS): $203,857 total reported compensation
  • ADREANNA DIAZ (PRINCIPAL): $203,857 total reported compensation
  • CASEY NIELSON (BOARD MEMBER, TEACHER): $95,836 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Ivy tech charter school educates students to have the knowledge, character, and critical skills necessary to explore and contribute to the world in positive ways. Through design thinking strategies, inquiry-based learning, effective communication and inspired collaboration, ivytech graduates move on from their scholastic experience at ivytech charter school with purpose. They go on to cultivate action in the world that sparks both creative investigation and innovation, thereby becoming both global learners and leaders of the 21st century.

What it reported doing in 2024

A California public charter school currently serving 72 students in grades seven through twelve.

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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 78
  • Transparency & Controls: 84
  • Accountability: 81
  • Sustainability: 36
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 87.8%; rating input score 88
  • Program expense ratio: 86.7%; rating input score 87
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • 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: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 66.7%; rating input score 67; 11th 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: -1.2%; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.01; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.42; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 18.5%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 12.5% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9.1% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 16.7% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 87.8% of revenue deployed · 86.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 6 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $204K · 7 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 29 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2011 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.

  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 29/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 14/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 25/100.
  • Review — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization could not be resolved against the register, so the check is unfinished.