Cedar Creek Schools

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
720687240
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Ruston, LA, USA
Phone
2256203567
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$6,860,873
Expenses
$6,254,036
Assets
$7,548,852
Liabilities
$201,544

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • KENNETH HENDERSON (HEAD OF SCHO): $21,667 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To provide a superior college preparatory educational experience to its students.

What it reported doing in 2024

The effectiveness of cedar creek's curriculum is apparent in the students' academic accomplishments, such as the high number of ap scholars and admission to prestigious colleges. Advanced honors courses are available to academically gifted students beginning in the sixth grade. Dual enrollment and instructional partnerships with Louisiana tech university provide rich and rigorous classroom experiences. Stem students have opportunities to demonstrate their learning through academic competitions such as the Louisiana high school literary rally, the scholastic art and writing awards, and various organization conferences. Cedar creek's curriculum also offers experiences beyond the classroom such as, field trips, and community service.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 77% 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

STRONG - 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 total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 80
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 64
  • Sustainability: 60
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 87%; rating input score 87
  • Program expense ratio: 95.4%; rating input score 95
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 8.8%; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.21; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0.3%; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3% per year; rating input score 100; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2% per year; rating input score 100; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 0.2% per year; rating input score 100; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 87% of revenue deployed · 95.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 11 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $22K · 11 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $376K reported
  • Consistency: 25 of 25 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 44/100.