Real Journey Academies

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
263798438
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Ontario, CA, USA
Phone
9098888458
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Charter Schools

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$63,300,824
Expenses
$54,461,641
Assets
$133,797,409
Liabilities
$99,382,512

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DIANA RODRIGUEZ (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • ALEX LUCERO (CHIEF EXEC O): $357,589 total reported compensation
  • RANDEL JOSSERAND (CHIEF ACADEM): $283,614 total reported compensation
  • ROSE BOMENTRE (SUPERINTENDE): $252,160 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

New vision middle school is a California public charter school operated by real journey academies inc. The charter was authorized by the san bernardino chity unified school district and nuview union school district to enrich the lives of students through individualized learning focused on challenging educational standards while supporting parental choice.

What it reported doing in 2024

Four charter schools through out san bernardino and riverside counties, new vision middle school, serving 420 students in grades six thourhg eight. Iempire academy, serving 405 students in grades transitional kindergarten through five. The journey school serving 540 students in grades transitional kindergarden through six. Entrepreneur high school, serving 540 students in grades nine through twelve.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 90% 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 total spending goes to programs and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 60
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 65
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 52.3%; rating input score 52
  • Program expense ratio: 60%; rating input score 60
  • Fundraising efficiency: $2,092.71 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings

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: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 77th 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: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • 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%; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.46; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.74; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 3.1%; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 18.3% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 18% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 27.2% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 52.3% of revenue deployed · 60% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $32.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $358K · 12 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $1.3M reported
  • Consistency: 27 of 27 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 7 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 52/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 20/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 36/100.