Better Blended Learning for Indiana Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
454760576
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2016
Forms available
Form 990 2016
Location
Indianapolis, IN, USA
Phone
3172525919
Rating
79
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Kindergarten, Preschool, Nursery School, Early Admissions

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,917,767
Expenses
$1,917,736
Assets
$451,206
Liabilities
$440,290

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DEBRA MORGAN (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • KELLY HAMILTON (TREASURER)
  • KARA MONROE (MEMBER)
  • JIM WILLIAMS (SECRETARY)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The corporation's mission is to provide top-quality personalized education for students and families who seek an alternative to the conventional classroom. The school advised by the corporation will maintain a commitment to excellence in curriculum, instruction, accountability, and communication for virtual schools and will work in partnership with its sponsoring authority, and according to the terms of its charter school contract.

What it reported doing in 2016

Better blended learning for Indiana, inc. D/b/a nexus academy of indianapolis is a public charter school located in indianapolis, Indiana that serves students in grades 9 to 12 via virtual and classroom instruction. During the 2016-2017 fiscal year, the school provided quality public education online and in the classroom to approximately 111 students.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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 program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 78
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 32
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 88.5%; rating input score 88
  • Program expense ratio: 88.5%; rating input score 88
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • 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: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 0%; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.24; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.98; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -6.8% per year; rating input score 0; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -7.7% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 17% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 88.5% of revenue deployed · 88.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $933K reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 31 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2015 to 2016
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 37/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 12/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 8/100.