Baton Rouge Christian Education Foundation Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 720921878
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Baton Rouge, LA, USA
- Phone
- 2257677097
- Rating
- 80
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Affiliation
- Christianity
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $24,616,412
- Expenses
- $23,810,323
- Assets
- $28,645,220
- Liabilities
- $20,136,798
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
14 people listed
Highest reported compensation
- STEVE A EAGLETON (HEADMASTER): $385,007 total reported compensation
- NIKOLE BLANCHARD (DIRECTOR OF INNOVATION & TECHNOLOGY): $142,872 total reported compensation
- GRADY HAZEL (CFO): $140,235 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 dunham school seeks to provide students with the opportunity for college preparatory education set in a framework of christian instruction and example. To this end, the school offers boys and girls rigorous academic instruction challenging athletic and recreational activities, and creative expression in the fine arts. Each of these opportunities is ultimately grounded in a desire to educate the heart and mind for christ.
What it reported doing in 2024
The organization provided educated services to 827 students in grades pre-kindergarten through 12th, including our academic center.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Other-operating. 87% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 81% 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.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 78
- Transparency & Controls: 76
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 43
- Growth: 80
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 83.7%; rating input score 84
- Program expense ratio: 86%; rating input score 86
- Fundraising efficiency: $5.13 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 20th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
- Compensation committee: Pass
- 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: 52.8%; rating input score 53; 12th percentile among comparable filings
- 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: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- 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: 3.3%; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.2; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.7; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 4.3%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 7.3% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 4% per year; rating input score 100; 35th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -0.7% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 83.7% of revenue deployed · 86% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $20.5M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $385K · 14 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $3.2M reported
- Consistency: 28 of 29 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 10 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: 6 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.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 21/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 53/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 47/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 43/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 17/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 57/100.