College Park Academy Plus Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
463232848
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2014–2015
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2015
Location
Hyattsville, MD, USA
Phone
2406963206
Rating
59
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Undergraduate College (4-year)

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$88,623
Expenses
$82,097
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JAMES ROSAPEPE (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • JAMES ROSAPEPE (PRESIDENT)
  • ROBERT CATLIN (TREASURER)
  • DONNA WISEMAN (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-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To extend learning opportunities for students, and to encourage healthy bodies and minds as the students investigate, create, and innovate.

What it reported doing in 2015

College park academy plus provides before and after school care services and extracurricular activities, including athletic programs and academic-based clubs, to the students of college park academy.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 89% 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

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 31
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Sustainability: 35
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 29.6%; rating input score 30
  • Program expense ratio: 32%; rating input score 32

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 7.4%; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 14.1% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -51.8% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -200% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 29.6% of revenue deployed · 32% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $26K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 8 of 8 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2014 to 2015
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 30/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 32/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 1/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 57/100.