Pacific Charter Institute

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
161727094
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Sacramento, CA, United States
Phone
(866) 992-9033
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Charter Schools

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$53,661,041
Expenses
$52,101,982
Assets
$27,396,996
Liabilities
$3,684,312

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

Leadership & pay

23 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Paul Keefer (Executive Director)
  • Heather Mariano (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Paul Keefer (Executive Director): $267,739 total reported compensation
  • Heather Mariano (Executive Director): $214,105 total reported compensation
  • Catherine Ward-Mikes (Director): $199,913 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Pacific Charter Institute empowers students to take charge of their education by connecting their individual needs and interests to a rigorous learning plan, thus creating self-motivated responsible citizens, critical problem solvers, and lifelong learners. Homeschool Support We believe children deserve the opportunity to discover their own path. Homeschooling provides families the freedom to explore and individualize curriculum based on different learning styles. Pacific Charter Institute credentialed teachers work cooperatively with parent educators to develop an individual student learning plan and meet with the family at least once every 20 school days. All of our charter schools offer homeschool support, geography being the predominant factor in student placement. All PCI homeschool.

What it reported doing in 2024

PCI provided over 3,300 students with a quality individualized educational program.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 100% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

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: 82
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 86
  • Sustainability: 39
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 91.4%; rating input score 91
  • Program expense ratio: 94.1%; rating input score 94
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 68th 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: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 77th 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: Fail
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 2.9%; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.53; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.13; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.1%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 11.2% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 10.1% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 14.1% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 3 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 91.4% of revenue deployed · 94.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $52.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $268K · 23 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $1.5M reported
  • Consistency: 39 of 41 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 16 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 9 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 47/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 19/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 16/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesAccounting column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization could not be resolved against the register, so the check is unfinished.