Esperanza Community Collegial Acade

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
020704253
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2013
Forms available
Form 990 2013
Location
Phoenix, AZ, USA
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Secondary, High School

Reported finances

Revenue
$320,155
Expenses
$275,575
Assets
$82,272
Liabilities
$159,791

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2013. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

People named in this filing

  • JOSE CORTEZ (DIRECTOR)
  • VICKY PEREZ (DIRECTOR)
  • MARCEL LOPEZ (DIRECTOR)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2013. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Arizona Charter School

What it reported doing in 2013

To create a smaller learning community that provides an environment where students are recognized and valued as individuals, and where they know that they are expected to achieve. Served 9th - 12th grades.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 79% 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 - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and revenue has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 49
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 48
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 52%; rating input score 52
  • Program expense ratio: 60.4%; rating input score 60
  • 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: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 13.9%; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.3; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.94; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -28.7% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3.6% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 52% of revenue deployed · 60.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 7 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $166K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 14 of 14 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2012 to 2013
  • 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.

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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 52/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 18/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 2/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.