College Preparatory Middle School

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
272783321
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Spring Valley, CA, USA
Phone
6193032782
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Charter Schools

Reported finances

Revenue
$6,369,072
Expenses
$4,687,379
Assets
$20,630,301
Liabilities
$11,843,701

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • COREY MEITCHIK (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • MITCHELL MILLER (DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL OPERATIONS): $174,027 total reported compensation
  • CHRISTINA CALLAWAY (DIRECTOR OF BUSINESS SERVICES): $173,140 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 safe, nurturing educational community for the middle school learner based on mutual respect, high expectations for academics and behavior, with the appropriate supports in place to ensure all learners are able to meet those expectations.

What it reported doing in 2024

College prep middle school (cpms) is a small public charter school, authorized by the California state board of education (sbe), serving grades 5-8 located in the east county of san diego (spring valley, ca). Cpms offers a rigorous academic college prep program with an emphasis on literacy. The original college prep middle school (cpms) was founded in 2010. According to the California title company report, cpms was listed as the 3rd highest ranking middle school in san diego county. This achievement is a true testament to all of the hard work by our students, teachers and families. We believe that this partnership is the key to our success and the foundation of our "nurturing community for the middle school learner."

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 96% 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 liabilities are high compared with assets.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 64
  • Transparency & Controls: 74
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 69
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 64.4%; rating input score 64
  • Program expense ratio: 85.6%; rating input score 86
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • 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; 63rd 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: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 26.4%; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.4; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.57; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 7.4%; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 13.9% per year; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 12.9% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 23.3% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 64.4% of revenue deployed · 85.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $174K · 6 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $238K reported
  • Consistency: 30 of 30 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

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: Audit committee oversight not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 18/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 40/100.
  • Review — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization could not be resolved against the register, so the check is unfinished.