Honey Creek Community School

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
383256298
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Ann Arbor, MI, USA
Phone
7349942636
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Elementary, Secondary Education, K - 12

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,806,538
Expenses
$3,043,553
Assets
$3,663,960
Liabilities
$7,109,876

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Sherrill MacKay (President)
  • Karen Bailey (Vice President)
  • Kevin Kelly Ended (Executive Director)
  • Joseph Griffith (Co-Executive Director)
  • Susan Hofbauer (Co-Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Susan Hofbauer (Co-Executive Director): $131,133 total reported compensation
  • Joseph Griffith (Co-Executive Director): $82,141 total reported compensation
  • Kevin Kelly Ended (Executive Director): $65,914 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Honey Creek Community School develops the whole child by integrating a rigorous, project-based curriculum, real-life experiences and expertise, with a focus on relationships, and an emphasis on the importance of community in a supportive, multi-age classroom setting.

What it reported doing in 2024

Since its founding in 1995, Honey Creek has been and continues to be committed to providing a quality education experience that focuses on the whole child. The entire community, led by our talented faculty and administration, participates in creating a challenging and enriching environment that promotes critical-thinking skills, a positive self-image, and an appreciation and respect for diversity. Our committment to small, multi-age classrooms fosters strong relationships between students, teachers, and parents and allows for multiple learning styles as well as enabling each student to reach their full potential.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 92% 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

STRONG - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown and liabilities are high compared with assets.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 63
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 53
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 65.5%; rating input score 65
  • Program expense ratio: 81.8%; rating input score 82
  • 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: 8 of 8 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: 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: 20%; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.2; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.94; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 9.2%; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1.8% per year; rating input score 100; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.9% per year; rating input score 100; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.7% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 65.5% of revenue deployed · 81.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $2.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $131K · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 30 of 30 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • 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 — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 44/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 1/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 33/100.