Jane Goodall Environmental Middle School

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
680556077
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Salem, OR, USA
Phone
5033917030
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Charter Schools

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,107,744
Expenses
$986,511
Assets
$1,122,192
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DOUGLAS GUNTER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • DOUGLAS GUNTER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $151,848 total reported compensation
  • KRISTINE WALTON (PRINCIPAL): $36,801 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 corporation will provide an engaging and meaningful focus for students to achieve Oregon academic standards. Through partnerships with community and governmental organizations, an integrated curriculum design and an emphasis on field-based projects, students will actively apply their knowledge and skills as they improve local and global environments.

What it reported doing in 2024

Jane goodall environmental middle school (jgems) is a public charter middle school with a focus on math and science. Jgems employs 10 employees, all of which are employees of the salem-keizer public school district. At jgems, instruction is based around field-based, or outdoor learning, along with project-based learning. At full capacity, jgems provides instruction to 99 students. During this fiscal year, jgems provided instruction for 99 students.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 96% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 79
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 78
  • Sustainability: 60
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 85.4%; rating input score 85
  • Program expense ratio: 93.7%; rating input score 94
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 10.9%; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.14; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.3%; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.6% per year; rating input score 100; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.8% per year; rating input score 100; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 85.4% of revenue deployed · 93.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 7 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $924K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $152K · 8 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 23 of 23 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2013 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 9 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 47/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 52/100.