Northwestern Preparatory School Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
410451348
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Goleta, CA, USA
Phone
8055629843
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$582,235
Expenses
$646,575
Assets
$2,296,706
Liabilities
$5,334

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SUZANNE DURBECK (PRESIDENT, MATH INSTRUCTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • SUZANNE DURBECK (PRESIDENT, MATH INSTRUCTOR): $133,221 total reported compensation
  • DANIEL DURBECK (DIRECTOR OF ATHLETICS/DEAN): $133,221 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 assist the young people of our country who desire to serve as military officers and to emphasize scholarship, personal integrity, leadership and physical fitness. To increase their sat and act scores, to build a strong foundation in classes that will benefit them at the us service academies or rotc and to maximize their physical fitness, while following the honor code and working on team building.

What it reported doing in 2024

Staff advised students in methods of effective studying, memorization, time management, goal setting, organization and productive habits, along with lessons in etiquette and protocol. Guidelines were set for appearance and for dress in business casual and more formal attire. Due to California fires and the us forest service mandate for evacuation for three weeks, classes were remote for three weeks and in-person for eleven weeks. Classes were held six days per week and covered math, english, chemistry, physics, physical conditioning, vocabulary and study hall. 53 students were in the program. 45 received appointments to us service academies and eight entered colleges. Seminars were conducted on sexual harassment, honor code, military careers and opportunities. Outside speakers were often invited to conduct seminars. Students choosing to attend church were driven by northwestern prep staff to the appropriate church. When a student required medical attention, the school furnished the transportation and a staff member to accompany the student. Each student was counseled with regards to his or her choice of academies, universities or rotc programs. Staff members also worked with students advising them in their applications for their nominations to their congressmen, senators, the vice president, the president andthe various academies. Staff members provided requested evaluations of performance, academic ability, physical fitness standards, characteristics of honor, work ethic, integrity, leadership, community interaction, or other applicable traits. Northwestern preparatory remained available and offered support and encouragement once the students reached the academy, their rotc units or their other commissioning sources. Northwestern preparatory school was contacted by organizations that performed background checks for security purposes on those entering the academies/rotc programs. Also, former students, now officers, needed additional clearances for higher level security assignments. Northwestern prep provided them to the office of personnel management, the fbi and other investigative bodies. Complete recommendations with color photo id's and transcripts are kept on file for each of the 3,000 former students. Northwestern prep maintains a thorough database which allows students to contact form networks with all former classes of graduates while on assignments throughout the world and when joining a particular military service community.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 99% 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 the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 84
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 62
  • Sustainability: 40
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 97.8%; rating input score 98
  • Program expense ratio: 89%; rating input score 89
  • 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: 50%; rating input score 50; 11th 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: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -11.1%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.55; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 41.2%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -0.6% per year; rating input score 0; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -1.2% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 14.3% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 97.8% of revenue deployed · 89% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 2 of 4 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $576K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $133K · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 20 of 20 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2013 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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: Independent voting board scored 50/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 16/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 3/100.
  • Review — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization could not be resolved against the register, so the check is unfinished.