Twin Rivers Charter School

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
201083443
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Yuba City, CA, USA
Phone
5307552872
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Charter Schools

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$7,971,995
Expenses
$8,090,220
Assets
$5,924,441
Liabilities
$2,268,695

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CHRISTINA JOLLY (DIRECTOR/PRINCIPAL/CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • CHRISTINA JOLLY (DIRECTOR/PRINCIPAL/CEO): $206,636 total reported compensation
  • OBIE LEFF (DIRECTOR/PRINCIPAL): $202,290 total reported compensation
  • RAJVINDER DEOL (STUDENT SERVICES COORDINATOR): $158,623 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Inspire and prepare students for academic excellence and cultivate responsbile, engaged, and well-rounded citizens.

What it reported doing in 2024

Twin rivers charter school (trcs) is an innovative tk-8 independent charter school that is committed to cultivating all aspects of the child. In partnership with families, staff, students, and the community, trcs demonstrates creativity and versatility by implementing high standards of teaching and learning and preparing students for the next level of educational achievement.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 94% 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. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 60
  • Transparency & Controls: 74
  • Accountability: 91
  • Sustainability: 27
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 68.5%; rating input score 68
  • Program expense ratio: 67.1%; rating input score 67
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • 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: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -1.5%; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.73; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.38; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 15.2%; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.6% per year; rating input score 100; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.3% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.6% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 68.5% of revenue deployed · 67.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $5.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $207K · 13 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $2.4M reported
  • Consistency: 30 of 30 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 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
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 28/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 27/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 18/100.
  • 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.