Pta Mt Washington Elementary

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
956208664
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2016, Form 990-N 2010
Location
Los Angeles, CA, USA
Phone
3232258320
Rating
42
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$232,246
Expenses
$231,534
Assets
$83,412
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ELIZABETH FILLMORE (PRESIDENT)
  • REGINA CABRERA (1ST VICE PRESIDENT)
  • SARAH ROTHBARD (2ND VICE PRESIDENT)
  • Sara Simmonds (3RD VICE PRESIDENT)
  • Christina Hochleitner (4TH VICE PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • ELIZABETH FILLMORE (PRESIDENT)
  • REGINA CABRERA (1ST VICE PRESIDENT)
  • SARAH ROTHBARD (2ND VICE PRESIDENT)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

Mt. Washington elementary pta raises money to fund mt. Washington elementary school with a visual arts teacher a drama teacher a psychiatric social worker a physical education teacher teacher assistants classroom supplies and accelerated math and reading programs.

What it reported doing in 2024

Lausd: amounts paid to the los angeles unified school district to pay for essential services such as: teachers aides reading intervention teacher psychiatric social worker and school psychologist

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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

MIXED - 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: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 80
  • Accountability: 64
  • Sustainability: 42
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 84.6%; rating input score 85; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 90.4%; rating input score 90; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 14
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • 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: 0.3%; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.36; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -46.5% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.9% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 334 of 334 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 8 filed program accomplishments · $237K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 35 of 43 current checks pass · 8 findings to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2020 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 40/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 19/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesOther column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX GrantsToDomesticOrgs column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX InformationTechnology column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Insurance column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Interest column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.