Meadows Arts and Technology Elementary School
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 611559832
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2011–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Thousand Oaks, CA, USA
- Phone
- 8054957037
- Rating
- 73
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Charter Schools
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $6,651,487
- Expenses
- $5,662,371
- Assets
- $6,007,033
- Liabilities
- $339,634
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
9 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- CHRIS SUMMERS (PRESIDENT)
- STACEY FOSTER (VICE PRESIDENT)
- KRISTEN WALKER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- KRISTEN WALKER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $188,856 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Instituting a vision that welcomes innovation, honors the past, transforms the future, commands achievement and empowers all children through the arts and technology.
What it reported doing in 2024
Meadow arts & technology elementary school (mates) is a public school with grades from kindergarten to 5th grade. The school served on average 385 students based on ada. The mission of mates is instituting a vision that welcomes innovation, honors the past, transforms the future, commands achievement, and empowers all children through the arts and technology. The guiding principle that drives mates is simple. We collectively believe that children deserve our best effort in providing a safe, stimulating, enriched learning environment where every child thrives. This includes a focus on academic excellence within the research-supported framework of the arts and technology, project-based learning opportunities, strong teacher collaboration, high expectations of achievement in core content areas, and community involvement.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Grant-funded. 93% 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 - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. Total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown and the available information about grant readiness state registration leaves an important question unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 57
- Transparency & Controls: 74
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 61
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 61%; rating input score 61
- Program expense ratio: 70.5%; rating input score 70
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: Pass
- 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 8 of 8 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: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 14.9%; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.06; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.06; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 3.3%; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 4.7% per year; rating input score 100; 38th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 7.2% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 12.4% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 61% of revenue deployed · 70.5% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $4M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $189K · 9 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $248K reported
- Consistency: 28 of 28 current checks pass
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
- Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 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.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 39/100.
- Review — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization could not be resolved against the register, so the check is unfinished.