River Oaks Academy
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 272838886
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2011–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2009
- Location
- Westlake Village, CA, USA
- Phone
- 8057777999
- Rating
- 73
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Charter Schools
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $5,787,832
- Expenses
- $5,205,754
- Assets
- $3,719,953
- Liabilities
- $1,413,105
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
8 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- MARIA MONTAGNE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- CLAUDIA WEINTRAUB (DIRECTOR EMERITUS): $354,684 total reported compensation
- MARIA MONTAGNE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $209,569 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The mission of the river oaks academy, an independent study charter school, is to help children find their individual interest, gifts, and talents. To that end, river oaks academy provides its students with a wide array of workshop classes designed to introduce new skills and experiences, in addition to supporting academic endeavors.
What it reported doing in 2024
River oaks academy is a public school with grades from kindergarten to 12th grade. The school served on average 363 students based on ada. River oaks academy is founded on the belief that all children are born with the capacity for brilliance. Our mission is to help children find, nurture, and sustain the passion that will lead to their individual forms of brilliance. To this end, we offer a non-traditional k-12 independent study program of individually designed curriculum and direction.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Grant-funded. 89% 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 - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. Total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 59
- Transparency & Controls: 77
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 44
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 63.6%; rating input score 64
- Program expense ratio: 70.1%; rating input score 70
- 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: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 10.1%; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.71; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.38; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 10.8%; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 12.9% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 13.7% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 16% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 63.6% of revenue deployed · 70.1% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $3.6M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $355K · 8 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $232K reported
- Consistency: 28 of 28 current checks pass
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay
- Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 2 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 26/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 27/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 28/100.
- Review — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization could not be resolved against the register, so the check is unfinished.