Cedars International Academy
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 742960628
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2019–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Austin, TX, USA
- Phone
- 5124191551
- Rating
- 79
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Charter Schools
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $7,662,709
- Expenses
- $7,496,506
- Assets
- $4,222,982
- Liabilities
- $2,468,355
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
8 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- MICHAEL BLALOCK (PRESIDENT)
Highest reported compensation
- DR LESLIE SPARACELLO (SUPERINTENDENT): $143,011 total reported compensation
- DONNA BOWEN (BUSINESS MANAGER): $73,607 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Provide all students with rigorous learning and personalized relationships within a safe community, to ensure their success as responsible, globally conscious citizens.
What it reported doing in 2024
Approximately 85% of our students are hispanic and economically disadvantaged, and we take pride in serving as a critical support system for families who have been historically underserved by local school districts. Within our attendance areas, cedars international consistently demonstrates strong performance, exceeding that of most traditional and charter schools, with the exception of nyos. Based on the fy24-25 unlitigated ratings, cedars earned an a district designation. Our current rating of 74 reflects the impact of an unanticipated adjustment in ccmr scoresfrom 60% to 88% as well as the challenges associated with the first year of implementing the tea-recommended curriculum. Despite these factors, cedars has demonstrated significant progress in ccmr outcomes, with scores increasing from 69% to 91% over the past two years. The fy24-25 ratings are expected to reflect this continued growth. In response to the transition to the new curriculum and identified performance gaps, we have strengthened our improvement plan by embedding targeted training and professional development into our weekly schedule. These efforts are designed to support instructional alignment and improve student outcomes.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Grant-funded. 97% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
- 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 expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 75
- Transparency & Controls: 92
- Accountability: 75
- Sustainability: 36
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 83.6%; rating input score 84
- Program expense ratio: 85.5%; rating input score 85
- 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: 75%; rating input score 75; 13th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- 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: 2.2%; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.56; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.58; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 2.9%; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 5.7% per year; rating input score 100; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 5.3% per year; rating input score 100; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 2.3% per year; rating input score 100; 21st percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 83.6% of revenue deployed · 85.5% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 6 of 8 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $6.4M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $143K · 8 people listed
- Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $140K reported
- Consistency: 28 of 28 current checks pass
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
- Filing history: 5 filing years from 2019 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
- 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 8 not reported.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 42/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 20/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 17/100.