Girls Preparatory School

Legal name: Girls Preparatory School Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
620475682
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Chattanooga, TN, US
Phone
(423) 634-7600
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Elementary, Secondary Education, K - 12

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$41,139,026
Expenses
$24,184,421
Assets
$95,551,400
Liabilities
$19,455,716

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

Leadership & pay

30 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • MEGAN COVER (HEAD OF SCHOOL): $455,545 total reported compensation
  • MARK VOSSKAMP (CFO/COO): $254,754 total reported compensation
  • ALISON GANT (CHIEF ADVANCEMENT OFFICER): $211,582 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 girls in a college-preparatory environment that fosters intellectual curiosity, integrity, and a sense of responsibility.

What it reported doing in 2024

Girls preparatory school (gps) is an independent college preparatory school for grades six through twelve where approximately 40% of students received financial assistance. Gps inspires each girl to lead a life of integrity and purpose by engaging her mind, cultivating her strenghths, and nurturing her self-confidence and respect for others. It does so by focusing on its values of honor, respect, curiosity, individuality, and relationships. In fiscalyear 2025, gps graduated 72 students.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 77% for direct work, and 23% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

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 the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 53
  • Transparency & Controls: 77
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 79
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 42.6%; rating input score 43
  • Program expense ratio: 71.9%; rating input score 72
  • Fundraising efficiency: $12.96 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 5 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 83
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd 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: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • 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: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 41.2%; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.95; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.2; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.5%; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.5% per year; rating input score 100; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.6% per year; rating input score 100; 20th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 3 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 42.6% of revenue deployed · 71.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 24 of 24 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $17.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $456K · 30 people listed · 5 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $2.2M reported
  • Consistency: 35 of 35 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 12 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 43/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 46/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 46/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 58/100.