Rancho Encinitas Academy League

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
330960085
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2010–2016
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2016, Form 990-N 2009
Location
Encinitas, CA, USA
Phone
7609422011
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Reported finances

Revenue
$140,967
Expenses
$112,162
Assets
$35,383

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Dawn Kristol (President)
  • Lauren Calderone (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Dawn Kristol (President)
  • Lauren Calderone (Vice President)
  • Suzie Ricci (Secretary)

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

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Educational enrichment programming

What it reported doing in 2016

Rancho Encinitas Academy League is a non-profit parent organization that actively promotes a strong Rancho Encinitas Academy (REA) school community and enhances the educational opportunities for all students in grades Pre-Kindergarten through 8th. REA supports students in several ways, including but not limited to, technology in the classroom, campus improvements, community outreach, and additional programs such as art and music.During the reporting year, the organization served over 50 families by providing programs to students and community building activities. Also, the organization made improvements to the campus, including completion of the amphitheater and significant technology upgrades.

Operating model

Revenue model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent revenue detail to tell how this nonprofit funds its work.
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 program spending has grown recently. 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: 46
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Sustainability: 53
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 41.8%; rating input score 42
  • Program expense ratio: 52.5%; rating input score 53

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 20.4%; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.32; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 15.6% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 19.5% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -13.9% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 41.8% of revenue deployed · 52.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $59K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 7 of 7 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2010 to 2016
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 42/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 53/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 28/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.
  • High — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization is not authorized to operate as a charity in California.