John Adams Academy
Legal name: John Adams Academies Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 271896345
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2014–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- El Dorado Hills, CA, US
- Phone
- (916) 934-5300
- Rating
- 80
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Charter Schools
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $67,320,127
- Expenses
- $69,015,979
- Assets
- $129,441,670
- Liabilities
- $123,429,036
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
11 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- JOSEPH BENSON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- JOSEPH BENSON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $260,205 total reported compensation
- TROY HENKE (SUPERINTENDENT): $181,189 total reported compensation
- MEGHAN MUYANJA (DIRECTOR OF ONLINE PROGRAM): $150,968 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
John Adams Academies, Inc. is preparing future leaders and statesmen through principle-based education centered on classics and great mentors.
What it reported doing in 2024
By combining classical education with servant leadership training and core values, john adams academy develops scholars who can become future leaders in the homes, communities, and country. Through classics, mentoring, and modeling, scholars will be inspired to prepare for their unique mission and will naturally hunger for oncoming responsibilities and future contributions in society. In 2024/2025 enrollment was 2,898 and 1,629 for tk 6 and 7-12 grades, respectively. Continued growth for 2025-2026 is expected.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Grant-funded. 97% 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
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 84
- Transparency & Controls: 70
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 35
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 95.4%; rating input score 95
- Program expense ratio: 92.8%; rating input score 93
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 68th 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: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- 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: -2.5%; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.88; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.95; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 1.5%; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 21.6% per year; rating input score 100; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 20.2% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 17.8% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 3 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 4 operating locations identified
- Where the money goes: 95.4% of revenue deployed · 92.8% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $64M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $260K · 11 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 3 contractors listed · $1.1M reported
- Consistency: 32 of 32 current checks pass
- Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
- Filing history: 11 filing years from 2014 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 6 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 18/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Document-retention policy not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 9/100.
- Review — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization could not be resolved against the register, so the check is unfinished.