Barry-Robinson Schools of Norfolk

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
542041314
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Norfolk, VA, USA
Phone
7574405500
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$8,631,915
Expenses
$8,684,467
Assets
$5,439,208
Liabilities
$2,225,673

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Pamela A Mckinney (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Lauren Mazzari (Head of School): $272,230 total reported compensation
  • Jeanette E White (Employee): $112,413 total reported compensation
  • Shelley M Thomas (Director of Finance): $67,799 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Barry-Robinson Schools of Norfolk is a non-stock, nonprofit Virginia-based corporation chartered in 2001. The organization is supported, supervised, and controlled by James Barry-Robinson Home for Boys Trust and was organized to construct and operate Saint Patrick Catholic School, an independent Roman Catholic elementary school. In addition, the organization provides tuition assistance to other Catholic elementary schools in Norfolk that serve the area.

What it reported doing in 2024

Pre-K, elementary, and middle school education at St. Patrick Catholic School

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 76% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 89% 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. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 80
  • Transparency & Controls: 81
  • Accountability: 38
  • Sustainability: 31
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 86.5%; rating input score 87
  • Program expense ratio: 86%; rating input score 86
  • Fundraising efficiency: $6.24 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: No; rating input score 0

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 37.5%; rating input score 38; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -0.6%; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.63; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.41; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.2%; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4.7% per year; rating input score 100; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.6% per year; rating input score 100; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.5% per year; rating input score 100; 32nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 86.5% of revenue deployed · 86% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 8 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $7.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $272K · 12 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 33 of 34 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 4 filed related-organization links
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 38/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 23/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 31/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 23/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 26/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 52/100.