Boys Preparatory Nashville

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
273309734
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2012
Forms available
Form 990 2012
Location
Nashville, TN, USA
Phone
6158108378
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Charter Schools

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,295,901
Expenses
$1,235,848
Assets
$211,400
Liabilities
$134,550

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

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

Overview

Mission

Boys prep strives to build character and develop the intellect of boys and young men in a spirit of brotherhood. Our goal is the formation of young men who are prepared to achieve excellence, serve their fellow man, and lead with courage.

What it reported doing in 2012

Our program, designed with young men in mind, is academically rigourous but also structured to guide boys in the transition to manhood. Randomly assigned student cohorts and teams are designed to encourage a strong sense of brotherhood amonst students. Teachers are empowered to make many choices regarding the particulars within the framework of the boys prep instructional philosophy and methodology.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 100% 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: 92
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 39
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

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: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 4.6%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.17; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.64; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5%; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $643K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $61K · 7 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed
  • Consistency: 24 of 24 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • 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.

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: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 9/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 57/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 18/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 59/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.