Kirkwood School District Parent Teacher Organization Kirkwood High School

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
043798884
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2014–2014
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2014
Location
Kirkwood, MO, USA
Phone
3142136100
Rating
33
Verdict
REVIEW
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Parent/Teacher Group

Reported finances

Revenue
$10,448
Expenses
$14,768
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • STACEY WOODRUFF (CO-PRESIDENT)
  • KERRY BJORKMAN (CO-PRESIDENT)
  • KARI BAKER (CO-VICE-PRESIDENT)
  • JEANNE MURPHY (CO-VICE-PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • STACEY WOODRUFF (CO-PRESIDENT)
  • KERRY BJORKMAN (CO-PRESIDENT)
  • KARI BAKER (CO-VICE-PRESIDENT)

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

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The Kirkwood High School Parent Teacher Organization will facilitate communication between the home, the school, and the community in order to promote cooperation in the education of the student; to encourage the academic achievement of our students by formal recognition; to promote growth of youth in the home, school, and community, and to promote each student to the highest standards in mental, physical, and moral education. This organization will support education through open communications.

What it reported doing in 2014

See schedule o

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 90% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

REVIEW - The filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 13
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -41.3%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 8 of 9 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part III transfer expenses within program total did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 13/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 1/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 57/100.