The Kew-forest School Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
111666834
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Forest Hills, NY, USA
Phone
7182684667
Rating
81
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Primary, Elementary Schools

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$10,064,807
Expenses
$14,414,970
Assets
$10,193,755
Liabilities
$2,684,830

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

Leadership & pay

19 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • Tiffany Trotter (Head of School): $263,918 total reported compensation
  • Victor De Jesus (Director of Facilities): $182,902 total reported compensation
  • Scott Quintero (Director of Finance): $182,052 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 Kew-Forest School is an independent, co-educational college preparatory school for students in grades Pre-K through 12. Kew Forests mission is to provide an academically challenging college-preparatory education to a culturally diverse community in a structured caring environment.

What it reported doing in 2024

The Kew-Forest is an independent, co-educational, college preparatory school for students in grades Nursery-12. Kew-Forests mission is to provide an academically challenging college-preparatory education to a culturally diverse community in a structured caring environment.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 92% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 59% for direct work, and 41% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 82
  • Transparency & Controls: 83
  • Accountability: 86
  • Sustainability: 17
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 76.1%; rating input score 76
  • Fundraising efficiency: $1.91 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • 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: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -43.2%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.71; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.26; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 9.5%; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.1% per year; rating input score 100; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.5% per year; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.1% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 76.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $11M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $264K · 19 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 3 contractors listed · $605K reported
  • Consistency: 27 of 27 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 6/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 2/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 25/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 22/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 50/100.