University School of the Lowcountry

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
208765327
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Mount Pleasant, SC, USA
Phone
8438840902
Rating
87
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Elementary, Secondary Education, K - 12

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,561,386
Expenses
$1,638,269
Assets
$746,349
Liabilities
$527,130

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • Jason Kreutner (Head of School): $129,193 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 School of the Lowcountry is an independent school serving grades 3-12 that engages students in a variety of empirically proven and forward-thinking educational and service opportunities both in and outside of the classroom and challenges students in age-appropriate ways to excel academically while growing in emotional intelligence in a culture that teaches and practices the importance of citizenship.

What it reported doing in 2024

Provided educational programs for approximately 85 students in grades 3 through 12 in a flexible combination of acceleration, enrichment and in the application of higher-level thinking skills. Provided $98,360 in financial assistance to 12 students. VisionOur vision is to develop outstanding students who are well-prepared to be scholars, leaders, and global citizens of the future.Core ValuesWe develop discerning smart students by learning first-hand from experts about a range of topics outside the classroom.We foster leadership by providing opportunities to lead.We create a caring and inclusive environment by embracing diverse perspectives and individuals.We nurture compassionate and responsible students by serving our neighbors and community organizations. We encourage wellness through multi-faceted principles that promote student development and resiliency.Community SupportCollected, delivered and distributed $766 of food and necessities to needy residents in the North Charleston area.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 90% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 93% 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.
  • 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 expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 84
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 24
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 95.4%; rating input score 95
  • Program expense ratio: 90.9%; rating input score 91
  • Fundraising efficiency: $1.85 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th 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; 63rd 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: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -4.9%; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.46; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.71; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 7.9%; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 8.1% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9.1% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 17.8% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 95.4% of revenue deployed · 90.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $129K · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 35 of 35 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

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

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 5/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 24/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 21/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 10/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 44/100.