Democracy Prep Public Schools

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
202629354
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2009
Location
New York, NY, USA
Phone
6468299659
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fund Raising and/or Fund Distribution

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$19,810,965
Expenses
$19,631,068
Assets
$56,195,835
Liabilities
$38,908,623

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

Leadership & pay

21 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • NATASHA TRIVERS (CEO THRU 06/30/25)

Highest reported compensation

  • NATASHA TRIVERS (CEO THRU 06/30/25): $477,504 total reported compensation
  • VALERIE MARTINEZ (CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER): $299,263 total reported compensation
  • STEPHEN POPPER (CHIEF STRATEGY OFFICER): $271,155 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 educate responsible citizen scholars for success in the college of their choice and a life of active citizenship.

What it reported doing in 2024

The organization operates as a charter management organization providing educational services, management operations and fundraising activities for the following charter schools: democracy prep New York charter schools, democracy prep baton rouge, democracy prep agassi campus, and democracy prep Texas. Democracy prep charter schools educate responsible citizen-scholars for success in the college of their choice and for lives of active citizenship.in close partnership with families, we empower young people with the skills and values to flourish as community leaders who will strengthen our american democracy and change the world!

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 87% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 87% 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. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 77
  • Transparency & Controls: 74
  • Accountability: 86
  • Sustainability: 42
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 85.6%; rating input score 86
  • Program expense ratio: 87.3%; rating input score 87
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 87.5%; rating input score 88; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 58.6%; rating input score 59; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 0.9%; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.86; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.69; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 15.7%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.9% per year; rating input score 100; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 10.4% per year; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 23% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 85.6% of revenue deployed · 87.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $17.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $478K · 21 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $1.1M reported
  • Consistency: 33 of 34 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 15 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 4 filed related-organization links
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 59/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 37/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 7/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 18/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.