Provost Academy Colorado

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
270992505
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2014
Forms available
Form 990 2014
Location
Greenwood Village, CO, USA
Phone
3037701240
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Specialized Education Institutions

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,215,849
Expenses
$2,122,701
Assets
$299,113
Liabilities
$2,034,790

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JEFF POPIEL (BOARD PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • JEFF POPIEL (BOARD PRESIDENT)
  • TIM ADAMS (DIRECTOR)
  • ERNEST FLINK (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 2014. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To offer a world class online education to high school students. By using the most current technologies, customized curriculum and a distinctive focus on science and mathematics as a gateway to overall student success, provost academy Colorado will individualize the learning experience for its students and leave them uniquely prepared for the 21st century careers and post-secondary education.

What it reported doing in 2014

The purpose of our school is to educate students in grades 9-12 throughout the state of Colorado via online learning. The mission of provost academy Colorado is to offer a world class online education to high school students. By using the most current technologies, customized curriculum and a distinctive focus on science and mathematics as a gateway to overall student success, provost academy Colorado will individualize the learning experience for its students and leave them uniquely prepared for the 21st century careers and post-secondary education.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 100% 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 - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 45
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 94
  • Sustainability: 38
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 49.7%; rating input score 50
  • Program expense ratio: 51.9%; rating input score 52
  • 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: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 65th 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: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: 4.2%; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.14; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 6.8; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -20.2% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.8% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -55.6% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 49.7% of revenue deployed · 51.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 6 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 22 of 22 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2012 to 2014
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 50/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 52/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 5/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Document-retention policy not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 54/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.