Lennox Math Science and Technology Academy

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
464741735
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2013
Location
Inglewood, CA, USA
Phone
3106805600
Rating
83
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Elementary, Secondary Education, K - 12

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$12,182,445
Expenses
$10,026,534
Assets
$24,449,188
Liabilities
$4,017,044

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ARMANDO MENA (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • ARMANDO MENA (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $210,386 total reported compensation
  • MARIO VILLANUEVA (PRINCIPAL): $198,166 total reported compensation
  • VERONICA JIMENEZ (DIRECTOR OF STUDENT SERVICES): $195,776 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 academy strives to provide a real world education in order to equip students with the skills necessary to become critical thinkers, life-long learners, and productive members of society.

What it reported doing in 2024

Lennox academy provides a supportive and challenging program that strives to equip students with the skills necessary to adapt to changing conditions and be successful contributors in our global society. Lennox academy delivers a 21st century education that will guide students to find their passion and develop scholars who are reflective problem solvers, collaborative and ethical.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 96% 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 - 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 reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 79
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 67
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 72.7%; rating input score 73
  • Program expense ratio: 86.2%; rating input score 86
  • Fundraising efficiency: $96.62 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: 17.7%; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.44; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.16; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 11%; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 7.7% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 16% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 72.7% of revenue deployed · 86.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $8.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $210K · 14 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 3 contractors listed · $1.4M reported
  • Consistency: 33 of 33 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2014 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 17/100.
  • Review — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization could not be resolved against the register, so the check is unfinished.