Ashland County Community Academy
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 262310034
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2014–2015
- Forms available
- Form 990 2015
- Location
- Ashland, OH, USA
- Phone
- 4199030295
- Rating
- 82
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Elementary, Secondary Education, K - 12
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $927,366
- Expenses
- $856,714
- Assets
- $615,417
- Liabilities
- $112,647
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
6 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- TOM GAUS (PRESIDENT)
People named in this filing
- STEVE BROWN (BOARD MEMBER)
- KEVIN LACEY (BOARD MEMBER)
- RITA MCELFRESH (BOARD MEMBER)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
A conversion school alternative educational program for academically at- risk area high school age students, including but not limited to special needs students.
What it reported doing in 2015
Long-term program- the long term placement option is for students to attend fill-time. These students benefit from a standards-based education delivered by highly-qualified teachers just as they would from their resident school district. Smaller class sizes are more indivdualized, tailored instructional approaches allow studnets who have been unsuccessful in a traditional high school setting the opportunity to learn and ultimately to graduate. Short term program- the short term program, ashland county discipline center (acdc), is an alternative to out-of-school suspension in some cases expulsion. Acdc allows students to continue their schooling in a strict, rigorous enviornment. Resident districts supply school work, which is completed by the students during their placement period, which can last for a period of 1 to 10 days. Acdc is overseen by a discipline director.
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. Program spending has declined or grown slowly and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 76
- Transparency & Controls: 90
- Accountability: 94
- Sustainability: 56
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 83.3%; rating input score 83
- Program expense ratio: 90.1%; rating input score 90
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
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: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 6 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 86
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 7.6%; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.72; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.18; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -4.6% per year; rating input score 0; 20th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 9.1% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 23% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 83.3% of revenue deployed · 90.1% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 6 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $772K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed
- Consistency: 15 of 15 current checks pass
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules
- Filing history: 2 filing years from 2014 to 2015
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
- 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.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 37/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 41/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.