Charlotte Mason Institute Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
562624534
IRS 990 coverage
2017–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2016, Form 990-N 2014
Location
Greensboro, NC, USA
Phone
4157252807
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Education N.E.C.

Reported finances

Revenue
$942,758
Expenses
$1,049,777
Assets
$488,013
Liabilities
$4,091

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KERRY FORNEY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • KERRY FORNEY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $75,000 total reported compensation
  • AMBER JOHNSTON (BOARD MEMBER): $1,000 total reported compensation
  • MIN HWANG (BOARD MEMBER): $250 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The purpose of the charlotte mason institute is to support a worldwide community of learners and educators in the authentic practice of charlotte mason's design for education. We seek to do this through the following vision, mission and values: vision: a relational education for all students and teachers in every setting.mission: promoting the principles and practices of charlotte mason's design for education.values: charity, fidelity, humility

What it reported doing in 2025

Research-conducting a thorough investigation into the writings, programmes, and archival documents from the charlotte mason archive as well as through any future empirical research.practice-providing training through immersions or demonstrations of mason's methods to help others practice a mason education.outreach-providing ways by which those who are interested can access knowledge of charlotte mason's theories and practices. These include: conferences and retreats, book study groups, publications and curriculum component

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 95% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 57
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 69
  • Sustainability: 25
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 67.2%; rating input score 67
  • Program expense ratio: 60.4%; rating input score 60
  • 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: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -11.4%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.46; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 7.3%; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 13% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 17.7% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 19.5% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 67.2% of revenue deployed · 60.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $634K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $75K · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 23 of 24 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2017 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 12/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 23/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 45/100.