Pikes Peak Prep
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 202498520
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2011–2016
- Forms available
- Form 990 2016
- Location
- Colorado Springs, CO, USA
- Phone
- 7195707575
- Rating
- 83
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Charter Schools
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $2,697,836
- Expenses
- $2,794,265
- Assets
- $3,637,327
- Liabilities
- $8,794,025
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
10 people listed
People named in this filing
- MANYA WHITAKER (Director)
- BARBARA WINTER (Vice Chair)
- DENISE MUND (DIRECTOR)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Beating poverty through quality education.
What it reported doing in 2016
Establish, equip, and maintain a charter school for elementary and secondary students.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 84% 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
STRONG - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Program spending has declined or grown slowly and expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 74
- Transparency & Controls: 100
- Accountability: 94
- Sustainability: 37
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 84.1%; rating input score 84
- Program expense ratio: 81.2%; rating input score 81
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 6 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 86
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -3.6%; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.3; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 2.42; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -0.1% per year; rating input score 0; 26th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 4.9% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 49.5% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 84.1% of revenue deployed · 81.2% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 6 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.3M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 10 people listed
- Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $175K reported
- Consistency: 30 of 30 current checks pass
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
- Filing history: 6 filing years from 2011 to 2016
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- 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.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 21/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 53/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 1/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.