University Preparatory Academy

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
203008879
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
San Jose, CA, USA
Phone
4087231839
Rating
84
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Charter Schools

Reported finances

Revenue
$11,848,057
Expenses
$11,575,224
Assets
$8,660,969
Liabilities
$2,880,957

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DAVID PORTER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • DAVID PORTER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $242,405 total reported compensation
  • LUCAS KELLEHER (DIRECTOR OF STUDENT SERVICES): $162,702 total reported compensation
  • ANDREW YAU (DIRECTOR OF ALUMNI OUTREACH/SUPPORT): $159,675 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

University preparatory academy's mission is to prepare a diverse population of 7-12th grade students in santa clara county to enter and excel in the best colleges and universities in the nation.

What it reported doing in 2024

Operation of a public charter school: upa is proud of our diverse 7th through 12th grade student population, who mostly reside in santa clara county. Upa provides a strong, supportive, small school environment for students to excel academically, socially, and emotionally. Students will find teachers and support staff that will support and foster each student's unique strengths and needs. Upa provides a caring, vibrant culture where students can participate in 56 clubs and also competitive sports at the middle and high school level, including basketball, volleyball, track & field, and cross country. Upa values the mental health of our students, providing direct access to licensed mental health support services during the entire school year, including school breaks.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 96% 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. Expenses are high relative to revenue and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 89
  • Transparency & Controls: 74
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 36
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 86.7%; rating input score 87
  • Program expense ratio: 88.7%; rating input score 89
  • Fundraising efficiency: $5,669 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 99; 99th 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: Limited
  • 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: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 2.3%; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.75; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.33; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 8.7%; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 10.2% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9.2% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 15.7% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 86.7% of revenue deployed · 88.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $10.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $242K · 13 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 3 contractors listed · $1.2M reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 31 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 43/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 26/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Audit committee oversight not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 26/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 43/100.
  • Review — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization could not be resolved against the register, so the check is unfinished.