Grace Academy of North Texas

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
274643657
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2016
Forms available
Form 990 2016
Location
Celina, TX, USA
Rating
81
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Primary, Elementary Schools
Affiliation
Christianity

Reported finances

Revenue
$751,343
Expenses
$1,334,894
Assets
$2,014,642
Liabilities
$1,732,006

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

People named in this filing

  • MITCHELL S MOSES (CHAIRMAN)
  • MICHAEL VANA (VICE CHAIRMA)
  • ROBERT OWNBY (TREASURER)

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 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Grace classical desires to educate and graduate young men and women who seek god's wisdom and will in all facets of their lives. We desire to accomplish this through immersion in god's word; making him the center of all aspects of each student's education. We desire to provide excellence in our core curriculum as well as extra-curricular activities in order to develop every child's god-given gifts. Grace classical is committed to modeling and teaching servant leadership principles such as humility, compassion, and service as witnessed in the life of our lord jesus christ. We desire to provide opportunities to each student regardless of socioeconomic background. Grace classical seeks to prepare each student to discern, reason, and defend truth upon graduation; confident in themselves as unique creations of god; confident in their ability to articulate and evangelize the word of god.

What it reported doing in 2016

To educate and graduate young men and women who seek god's wisdom and will in all facets of their lives. To provide exellence in our core curriculum as well as extra-curricular activities in order to develop every child's god-given gifts.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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

STRONG - 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 expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 89
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 29
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • 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: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -77.7%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.51; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.86; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.4% per year; rating input score 100; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -5.2% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 27.1% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 29 of 29 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2012 to 2016
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 1/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 59/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 10/100.