Charterhouse Schools Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
541116056
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Richmond, VA, USA
Phone
8042549664
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Residential Mental Health Treatment

Reported finances

Revenue
$10,384,044
Expenses
$10,835,155
Assets
$5,833,028
Liabilities
$8,331,328

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

Leadership & pay

26 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Nancy Toscano PHD (President and CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • Nancy Toscano PHD (President and CEO): $439,335 total reported compensation
  • Matt Lisagor (Chief Operating Officer): $223,322 total reported compensation
  • Adalay Wilson (Chief Programs Officer): $174,336 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

At Charterhouse School at Shineforth, our mission is to be the unwavering champion that every child deserves, and our vision is to strengthen humanity, one child at a time. Charterhouse School at Shineforth operates two private day schools in Virginia (Edinburg and Richmond) that provide specialized education and therapeutic learning for K-12 students who have emotional or intellectual challenges or neurological differences, including autism spectrum disorder.

What it reported doing in 2024

Charterhouse School at Shineforth offers a trauma-sensitive learning environment and small class sizes. High staff-to-youth ratio promotes academic success, and Student Support Coaches supplement class supervision and teacher instruction. Charterhouse School students are encouraged to strengthen their independent thinking skills and build natural support systems, and all share the goal of either returning to their assigned public school or completing their post-secondary goals. In FY25, Charterhouse School served 238 students in grade K-12 and ages 5-22 at its two locations in Edinburg and Richmond.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 99% of the money available for current operations came from other operating 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 71
  • Transparency & Controls: 69
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 23
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 81.3%; rating input score 81
  • Program expense ratio: 77.9%; rating input score 78
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 94.7%; rating input score 95; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: -4.3%; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.54; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.43; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.2%; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.8% per year; rating input score 100; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.6% per year; rating input score 100; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 13.6% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 81.3% of revenue deployed · 77.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 18 of 19 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $8.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $439K · 26 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 25 of 25 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 18/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 17/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 2/100.