Parnassus Preparatory School

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
271088745
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Maples Grove, MN, USA
Phone
7634961416
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Charter Schools

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$19,000,156
Expenses
$18,805,844
Assets
$12,702,443
Liabilities
$10,145,539

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CONSTANCE FORD (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • KATHERINE GOOD (INTERIM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • CONSTANCE FORD (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $219,112 total reported compensation
  • KATHERINE GOOD (INTERIM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $159,802 total reported compensation
  • BARBARA ROSE (DIRECTOR): $99,385 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 mission of parnassus preparatory school is to provide students with a classical education, grounded in the classical trivium, that demands their best in intellectual achievement and character development.

What it reported doing in 2024

Parnassus preparatory school serves a highly diverse group of students from around the northwest suburbs of the twin cities and demands their best in intellectual achievement and character development. The school's academic program is structured through a classical education framework that is centered on the liberal arts. Parnassus' program engages students in latin, greek, english literature, mathematics, sciences, formal logic, philosophy, spanish, history, geography, art, history, music, arts, and the pursuit of truth, goodness, and beauty.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 97% 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

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 78
  • Transparency & Controls: 78
  • Accountability: 83
  • Sustainability: 35
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 87%; rating input score 87
  • Program expense ratio: 87.7%; rating input score 88
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 1st 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: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 80%; rating input score 80; 16th 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: 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: 1%; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.68; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.8; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.5%; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 8.8% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 10.3% per year; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 11.1% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 87% of revenue deployed · 87.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 5 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $16.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $219K · 7 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $2.7M reported
  • Consistency: 25 of 27 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, executive pay, and related organizations
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 38/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 23/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Document-retention policy not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D expense reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D revenue reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 14/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.