Kipp Nyc Facility Holdings Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 463090135
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2013–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- New York, NY, USA
- Phone
- 9179690284
- Rating
- 76
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Nonmonetary Support N.E.C.
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,189,657
- Expenses
- $2,681,342
- Assets
- $49,602,863
- Liabilities
- $24,424,463
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
7 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- RAFAEL MAYER (PRESIDENT)
- DAVID LEVIN (VICE PRESIDENT (UNTIL 11/2024))
- ALICIA JOHNSON (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)
Highest reported compensation
- ALICIA JOHNSON (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER): $511,088 total reported compensation
- NATALIE WEBB (DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT): $377,864 total reported compensation
- SUZANNE DEYOUNG (CFO (UNTIL 1/2025)): $275,037 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The mission of kipp nyc facility holdings inc. Is to secure long-term facilities for the kipp public charter schools in New York. They will primarily serve to develop, manage, and lease public school facilities to ensure that adequate facilities are available for high performing charter schools operating under the kipp name.
What it reported doing in 2024
The organization serves to develop, manage and lease public school facilities and foster further relationships with the city of New York to ensure that adequate facilities are available for high performing charter schools operating under the knowledge is power program (kipp) name in New York city (nyc).
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 100% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- 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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 87
- Transparency & Controls: 60
- Accountability: 91
- Sustainability: 36
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 94.1%; rating input score 94
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Missing
- 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 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Fail
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -125.4%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 18.5; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.49; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 6.3%; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 9.7% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -22.8% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 2.2% per year; rating input score 100; 26th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 94.1% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.5M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $511K · 7 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $1M reported
- Consistency: 17 of 17 current checks pass
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay
- Filing history: 12 filing years from 2013 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Related organizations: 6 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.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 1/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 16/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 49/100.