Palmer Trinity School

Legal name: Palmer Trinity Private School Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
237098500
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Palmetto Bay, FL, US
Phone
305.251.2230
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$46,233,698
Expenses
$38,752,239
Assets
$119,745,490
Liabilities
$42,592,090

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

Leadership & pay

43 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • PATRICK ROBERTS (HEAD OF SCHOOL): $823,444 total reported compensation
  • PETER TOLMACH (MIDDLE SCHOOL DIVISION HEA): $255,830 total reported compensation
  • JUAN GOMEZ (DIR OF DEVELOPMENT): $243,648 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Guided by our mission to nurture each student's growth and potential, Palmer Trinity School is committed to building an inclusive and supportive community that values diversity and ensures a learning environment free from discrimination.

What it reported doing in 2024

The school's spiritual life program provided regular chapel services, advisory programming, pastoral support, and values-based education consistent with the school's episcopal identity. Activities encouraged reflection, ethical decision-making, and personal growth for students across all grade levels.the global studies program offered coursework, student exchanges, cultural learning experiences, and international partnerships designed to broaden students' global awareness. The program supported the school's focus on global citizenship and cross-cultural understanding through curricular integration and experiential learning opportunities.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 87% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 83% 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. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 68
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 66
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 68.1%; rating input score 68
  • Program expense ratio: 81.2%; rating input score 81
  • Fundraising efficiency: $7.89 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: 16.2%; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.09; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.36; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 10.3%; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 7% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.5% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 9.2% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 6 programs and campaigns described on the official site
  • Where the money goes: 68.1% of revenue deployed · 81.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 21 of 21 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $31.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $823K · 43 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $4.4M reported
  • Consistency: 28 of 28 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 22 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 32/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 19/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 41/100.