The Trivium Academy of Classical Education
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 453163780
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2011–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Lompoc, CA, USA
- Phone
- 8052911303
- Rating
- 73
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Charter Schools
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $13,912,814
- Expenses
- $13,729,576
- Assets
- $3,395,769
- Liabilities
- $1,539,959
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
11 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- ANNETTE LAWRENCE (PRESIDENT)
Highest reported compensation
- TRISHA VAIS (EXECUTIVE DI): $199,977 total reported compensation
- TASHA DOCKERY (INTRUCTIONAL): $198,028 total reported compensation
- SARAH BRUCE (SECRETARY): $188,060 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Trivium charter school is committed to developong a personalized learning
What it reported doing in 2024
Trivium's mission: is to offer the best combination of homeschooling, classroom experience and personalized learning. Trivium focuses on creating an engaging school experience whether the student is in the classroom or at home. Trivium wants the students to enjoy learning while mastering foundational and critical thinking skills. This equips the students with tools to be successful at whatever they choose to do in the future.trivium operates 3 charter schools and 5 learning centers serving approximately 1,000 students throughout santa barbara county and san luis obispo counties.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Grant-funded. 100% 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. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 75
- Transparency & Controls: 65
- Accountability: 86
- Sustainability: 26
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 84.3%; rating input score 84
- Program expense ratio: 85.4%; rating input score 85
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd 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; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Fail
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 1.3%; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.25; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.45; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 10.3%; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 12.4% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 12% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 10.4% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 84.3% of revenue deployed · 85.4% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $11.7M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $200K · 11 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $117K reported
- Consistency: 29 of 29 current checks pass
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
- Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 8 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 39/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 6/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 19/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 32/100.
- Review — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization could not be resolved against the register, so the check is unfinished.