Beacon Preparatory School

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
510517488
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2012
Forms available
Form 990 2012
Location
Minneapolis, MN, USA
Phone
9524266000
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Secondary, High School

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,828,648
Expenses
$1,797,189
Assets
$434,890
Liabilities
$130,931

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2012. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2012. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Beacon preparatory school's mission is to engage students in a rigorous, content-rich curriculum with an emphasis on classical, liberal arts education, designed to prepare each individual student for lifelong learning and citizenship.

What it reported doing in 2012

Beacon preparatory school offers a strong classical education focused on student achievement and character development; through courses taught using the nationally acclaimed core-knowledge curriculum, students receive a top-quality education. The learning experience at beacon prep is further enhanced by the school's small class sizes and one-on-one student/teacher interaction. Explore the school's web site and learn more about how beacon prep delivers a truly excellent education as a public, tuition-free, charter school. Beacon prep offered sixth, seventh, and eighth grade to 163 students in the bloomington area and beyond during the 2012-2013 school year.beacon prep school creates and implements a focused and comprehensive plan for increasing student proficiency, improving individual growth, and closing the achievement gap through purposeful professional development, evidenced-based best practices, and a positive and supportive learning environment. To that end, we align our staff development with our teaching strategies while leveraging community resources to ensure cohesion and continuous improvement. We work with a reading and literacy expert, behavioral psychologist, and multicultural coordinator to improve teaching methods, classroom management, and student engagement with an aim to embed our professional development and build an internal capacity to sustain our efforts. Professional development is prioritized and supported by collaborative teams that include data-driven instruction, interim assessment, q comp, and child study; these teams meet semi-monthly individually and cooperatively for the purpose of identifying struggling students, targeting support, and gauging progress. Lastly, in addition to using data to drive curriculum and instruction and implementing evidence-based practices to achieve student growth, the school makes a concerted and intentional effort to cultivate a safe, positive and encouraging learning culture in partnership with parents and community members.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 97% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 33
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • Program expense ratio: Limited
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 57.1%; rating input score 57; 11th 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: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 1.7%; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.24; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.3; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 13.1%; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 14.4% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -16% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: 4 of 7 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $86K · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 25 of 25 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2010 to 2012
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Review — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 57/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 13/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 47/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 25/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 34/100.