Pazlo Education Foundation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 454893943
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2012–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Los Angeles, CA, USA
- Phone
- 3238176550
- Rating
- 74
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Elementary, Secondary Education, K - 12
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $6,853,326
- Expenses
- $6,385,524
- Assets
- $4,830,373
- Liabilities
- $2,231,206
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
12 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- MARGRET WOELKE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
- CESAR LOPEZ (FOUNDER & EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- MARGRET WOELKE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $201,403 total reported compensation
- CESAR LOPEZ (FOUNDER & EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $201,403 total reported compensation
- RICHELLE BROOKS (PRINCIPAL): $151,221 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To graduate students with a diploma that prepares them for the academic rigors of four-year universities so that they may meet the demands of 21st century careers.
What it reported doing in 2024
Operation of a public charter school: matrix for success academy. The school is a place where careful programming and one-on-one conferences give students the flexibility they need to realize their dreams. The organization works with vulnerable student populations throughout the los angeles area with a goal to increase college opportunities for their students. Matrix for success academy serves students in grades 9-12 through nonclassroom-based instruction.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Grant-funded. 95% 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. Total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown and expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 61
- Transparency & Controls: 79
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 39
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 67.5%; rating input score 68
- Program expense ratio: 71.2%; rating input score 71
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Pass
- 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
- 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: Fail
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 6.8%; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.76; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.46; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 16.9%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 4.2% per year; rating input score 100; 35th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 6.9% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 16.7% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 67.5% of revenue deployed · 71.2% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $4.5M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $201K · 12 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 4 contractors listed · $780K reported
- Consistency: 30 of 30 current checks pass
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
- Filing history: 12 filing years from 2012 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 7 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: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 28/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 55/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Audit committee oversight not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 16/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 23/100.
- Review — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization could not be resolved against the register, so the check is unfinished.