Cornerstone Academy Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
770547474
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2009
Forms available
Form 990 2009
Location
Los Angeles, CA, USA
Phone
8503146571
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Elementary, Secondary Education, K - 12

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,207,322
Expenses
$2,486,805
Assets
$627,875
Liabilities
$155,400

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2009. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2009. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Public charter school serving 300 students in grades 1-6.

What it reported doing in 2009

Charter school - cornerstone academy is established for students who desire academic success through motivation, enthusiasm, and optimism, regardless of their home language, or learning style. The school currently serves grades first through sixth.the school educates students to the greatest extent possible so that they become active learners, and responsible citizens. The school seeks to provide students with a rich and full academic experience so that they can build on a firm foundation of basic skills in future years.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 100% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 5
  • Sustainability: 17
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • Program expense ratio: Limited
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -12.7%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.25; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.25; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 15%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: 0 of 5 board members independent · 1 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $95K · 10 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed
  • Consistency: 16 of 16 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.

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.

  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 7 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 12/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 12/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 10/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 56/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.