Brooklyn Ascend Charter School

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
320232371
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2015
Forms available
Form 990 2015
Location
Brooklyn, NY, USA
Phone
7189079150
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Charter Schools

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$19,451,596
Expenses
$18,486,976
Assets
$4,840,066
Liabilities
$8,532,145

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • JOHANA ANDUJAR (SCHOOL DIRECTOR): $159,676 total reported compensation
  • MARSHA GADSDEN (SCHOOL DIRECTOR): $129,826 total reported compensation
  • MELISSA JARVIS-CEDENO (SCHOOL DIRECTOR): $91,957 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Brooklyn ascend charter school's (the "school") mission is to equip every student with the knowledge, confidence, and character to succeed in college and beyond. The school will span kindergarten through the 12th grade at maturity. (continued on schedule o) from the earliest grades, students will steadily build a strong foundation of learning habits, critical thinking skills, and knowledge; excel academically in the middle and high school, mastering high-level math and science; and graduate as confident young adults, prepared to succeed as college students, as citizens, and as leaders in their chosen fields.

What it reported doing in 2015

Expenses directly associated with the operations of the charter school and the related curriculum costs. For the 2015-2016 school year, we served approximately 1,151 students in kindergarten through eighth grade.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 96% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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. Total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 74
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 40
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 81.5%; rating input score 81
  • Program expense ratio: 85.7%; rating input score 86
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • 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: 5%; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.26; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.76; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.5%; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 9.9% per year; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 21.5% per year; rating input score 100; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 17.2% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 81.5% of revenue deployed · 85.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $15.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $160K · 10 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 3 contractors listed · $2.4M reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 31 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2009 to 2015
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 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.

  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 9/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 2/100.