Los Angeles Family School

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
952825348
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Los Angeles, CA, USA
Phone
3236638049
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Kindergarten, Preschool, Nursery School, Early Admissions

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,246,180
Expenses
$2,079,128
Assets
$2,217,847
Liabilities
$572,732

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JONATHAN SCHLEY (PRESIDENT)
  • SUMMER BJORK (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • LISSETT AVILA (DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION): $140,824 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Our philosophy is built on the idea that every person possesses a unique set of abilities, challenges, and character traits. Each child comes to school with a special set of plans and preferences. School is not something that we do to kids, but something that creates a partnership with them. We tell children what we are going to do - and why. School rules have reasons. Though we like to see kids participate in all activities offered, we honor a child's choice to be an observer or to focus on those activities that interest him/her. We support kids as they join in, get messy, take risks, and try something new.

What it reported doing in 2024

The primary exempt purpose of los angeles family school, as supported by the mission statement and articles of incorporation, is to provide education for young children within the context of a safe, stimulating child care center. We serve sixty families, single-parent households as well as those in which both parents work. We are located in silver lake, a socio-economically and ethnically diverse neighborhood ten minutes from downtown los angeles, we strive to have our student body reflect the wide variety of backgrounds represented in this neighborhood.all our fund raising efforts help keep our school affordable, thus avoiding some of elitism that is seen in more expensive schools. Because tuition does not cover budgeted expenses, there is a shortfall of about $590 per child per year. Our annual giving campaign allows financially secure families to cover that shortfall while other activities (such as the holiday boutique, fall and spring rummage sales and spring faire) fill the remaining financial gap.aside from creating a non-elitist environment, these activities also allow our students to practice many of the principles and social skills which they have learned in school.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 99% 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 - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 48
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 48
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 53.1%; rating input score 53
  • Program expense ratio: 57.3%; rating input score 57
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 7.4%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.07; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.26; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.8%; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -0.2% per year; rating input score 0; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.3% per year; rating input score 100; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7% per year; rating input score 100; 45th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 53.1% of revenue deployed · 57.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $141K · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 26 of 26 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 53/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 57/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 57/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 39/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 38/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 43/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.