Los Angeles Education Corps Charter School
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 270391310
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2012–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2009
- Location
- Long Beach, CA, USA
- Phone
- 5622161790
- Rating
- 77
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Charter Schools
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $11,549,798
- Expenses
- $11,179,841
- Assets
- $10,685,726
- Liabilities
- $2,408,313
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
12 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- BRUCO SAITO (PRESIDENT)
- NOEL RAUDA-TROUT (CEO)
Highest reported compensation
- NOEL RAUDA-TROUT (CEO): $251,224 total reported compensation
- TISHA MIDDLETON (CAO-PROGRAMS): $211,483 total reported compensation
- ANDREA KLEIN (CAO-OPERATIONS): $205,406 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 charter school, a California public charter school operates to serve the unique educational needs of the youth of the California conservation corps, the local conservation camps, job corps and youthbuild programs.
What it reported doing in 2024
We educate, train and support young people, ages 14-24, who are looking for a second chance to earn their high school diploma and the opportunity to earn a vocational training certificate. Laec is the charter management organization overseeing college bridge academy (cba) charter high school and the education corps (tec)/saito high school. We also operate the laec youthbuild cte training center - two locations offering construction and cna training.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Grant-funded. 96% 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 total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 69
- Transparency & Controls: 74
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 40
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 76.2%; rating input score 76
- Program expense ratio: 78.5%; rating input score 79
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th 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: 3.2%; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.96; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.23; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 13.1%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 4.5% per year; rating input score 100; 38th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 7.7% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 16.1% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 76.2% of revenue deployed · 78.5% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $8.8M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $251K · 12 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $116K reported
- Consistency: 25 of 25 current checks pass
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
- Filing history: 13 filing years from 2012 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 8 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.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 47/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 34/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 12/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 55/100.
- Review — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization could not be resolved against the register, so the check is unfinished.