Twin Cities International Elementary Charter School

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
311743010
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2016
Forms available
Form 990 2016
Location
Minneapolis, MN, USA
Phone
6128216477
Rating
82
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Charter Schools

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$8,740,902
Expenses
$11,069,819
Assets
$11,864,184
Liabilities
$14,842,977

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ABDIRASHID WARSAME (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • ABDIRASHID WARSAME (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $146,164 total reported compensation
  • ALI MUSE (ASSISTANT DIRECTOR): $109,294 total reported compensation
  • WESAM SHAKER (BOARD MEMBER/TEACHER): $75,331 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The twin cities international elementary school mission is to provide a rigorous education in a culturally sensitive environment to all students enrolled. Founded by educational leaders in the twin cities communities, this public charter school is open to serve all students and ultimately seeks to perpare students for successful and productive lives as united states citizens while allowing them to retain their unique cultural heritage.

What it reported doing in 2016

Twin cities international elementary is a nonprofit corporation that was formed and began operating in 2000, in accordance with Minnesota statues.

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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 85
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 22
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 86.9%; rating input score 87
  • 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: 57.1%; rating input score 57; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • 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: -26.6%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.07; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.25; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.1%; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 11.2% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.8% per year; rating input score 100; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 15.9% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 86.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 7 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $9.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $146K · 9 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $1.1M reported
  • Consistency: 27 of 27 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2009 to 2016
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 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.

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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 57/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 4/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Whistleblower policy not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 46/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 4/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 55/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.