Ransom Everglades School

Legal name: Ransom Everglades School Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
590659070
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Coconut Grove, FL, US
Phone
305 460 8800
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Elementary, Secondary Education, K - 12

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$91,008,141
Expenses
$72,317,183
Assets
$367,941,289
Liabilities
$91,797,431

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

Leadership & pay

41 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • PHIL CASSEL (CO-PRESIDENT-ALUMNI ASSOCIATION BOARD)
  • RACHEL GREER NARVAEZ (CO-PRESIDENT-ALUMNI ASSOCIATION BOARD)
  • JORDAN SHAPIRO (CO-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGE COUNSELING)
  • JASON LOCKE (CO-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGE COUNSELING)

Highest reported compensation

  • RACHEL RODRIGUEZ (HEAD OF SCHOOL): $572,726 total reported compensation
  • DAVID CLARK (COO): $437,616 total reported compensation
  • JOHN KING (ASSOCIATE HEAD OF SCHOOL): $297,551 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Ransom Everglades School produces graduates who 'believe that they are in the world not so much for what they can get out of it as for what they can put into it.' The school provides rigorous college preparation that promotes the student's sense of identity, community, personal integrity and values for a productive and satisfying life, and prepares the student to lead and to contribute to society.

What it reported doing in 2024

During the 2024-25, school year, ransom everglades provided students on two campuses access to a rigorous academic program built on discussion-based learning and innovative thinking and enhanced by technologically advanced classrooms. The academic offerings were complemented by a wide-ranging and successful athletics program; a variety of opportunities in the performing and visual arts; and popular summer classes and camps. In addition, all students found frequent opportunities to engage in local or global service through student-run clubs or school-wide initiatives.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 79% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 79% for direct work, and 21% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

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: 51
  • Transparency & Controls: 91
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 78
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 51%; rating input score 51
  • Program expense ratio: 58.5%; rating input score 58
  • Fundraising efficiency: $5.87 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 5 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 83
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 77th 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; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 20.5%; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.09; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.25; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 3.3%; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.5% per year; rating input score 100; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.6% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.7% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 3 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 51% of revenue deployed · 58.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 33 of 33 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $42.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $573K · 41 people listed · 5 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $7.5M reported
  • Consistency: 35 of 35 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: 8 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.

Key Signals

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

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 51/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 58/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 26/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 33/100.