La Fe Preparatory School Inc Fka La Fe Community Development Corporation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 742991952
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
- Location
- El Paso, TX, USA
- Phone
- 9155347979
- Rating
- 51
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Business and Industry
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $3,208,875
- Expenses
- $2,952,935
- Assets
- $2,361,589
- Liabilities
- $1,144,289
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
5 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Robert Gonzales (COO/President)
- Salvador Balcorta (Chief Executive Officer)
Highest reported compensation
- Salvador Balcorta (Chief Executive Officer): $244,588 total reported compensation
- Lucy M Rodarte (Chief Financial Officer): $162,955 total reported compensation
- Robert Gonzales (COO/President): $71,374 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 create and promote a bilingual and multicultural learning environment that will empower children to achieve the highest levels of academic, artistic, physical, and social well-being by instilling confidence and a joy for learning. See schedule o for additional information.
What it reported doing in 2024
La fe preparatory school (prep school) is an open enrollment charter school authorized by the Texas education agency (tea). The main focus of the prep school is education and is operated in accordance to the rules and regulations set forth by tea. Funding for the prep school is supported by state education funding, local-state-federal grants, and private contributions.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Grant-funded. 99% 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
MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 50
- Transparency & Controls: 60
- Accountability: 42
- Sustainability: 48
- Growth: 40
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 54.6%; rating input score 55
- Program expense ratio: 59.2%; rating input score 59
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 7th 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: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: No; rating input score 0
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 40%; rating input score 40; 7th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 4 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 44
- 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: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 8%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.8; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.48; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 1.2%; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -0.1% per year; rating input score 0; 13th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 1.1% per year; rating input score 100; 16th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -1.4% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 54.6% of revenue deployed · 59.2% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 2 of 5 board members independent · 4 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.7M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $245K · 5 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 27 of 28 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, executive pay, and related organizations
- Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 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.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 55/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 40/100.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 59/100.
- Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 8 not reported.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 30/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 58/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 22/100.