Covenant Christian Academy
Legal name: Covenant Christian Academy of Warrenton Virginia
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 261195258
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2017–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Warrenton, VA, United States
- Phone
- (540) 680-4111
- Rating
- 76
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Elementary, Secondary Education, K - 12
- Affiliation
- Christianity
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $3,284,033
- Expenses
- $2,931,140
- Assets
- $4,013,037
- Liabilities
- $2,332,472
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
15 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- SCOTT SHORTMEYER (PRESIDENT)
Highest reported compensation
- ANDREA SPONSLER (HEAD OF SCHOOL): $49,945 total reported compensation
- JANELLE HITT (TRUSTEE): $22,505 total reported compensation
- CHRIS ALBARUHO (VICE CHAIR/BOARD): $1,133 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 CCA, we equip young men and women to serve the Lord and glorify Him with their lives. Wherever they serve—in the world, in the church, or in the home—we strive to prepare our students academically, spiritually, and socially. In courses involving this role, parents have a primary role as a supervisor. Since, at this level, more responsibility is placed on the student, parents have limited and fewer academic tasks assigned to them. Sometimes the parent will function more as a Course Monitor whose main task is to track the progress of the student and to be alert to any problems. At other times, the parent may function as a Project Assistant where more hands-on help is required in support of a particular project. In whatever role, however, the parents’ supervisory presence and watchful eyes are integral to the student’s success. Parents will also need to provide support for...
What it reported doing in 2024
Equip young men and women to serve the lord and glorify him with their lives. Wherever they serve-in the world, in the church, or in the home-we strive to prepare our students academically, spiritually and socially.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 91% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 99% 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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 79
- Transparency & Controls: 90
- Accountability: 46
- Sustainability: 55
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 82.8%; rating input score 83
- Program expense ratio: 94.6%; rating input score 95
- Fundraising efficiency: $2.58 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 20th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 71.4%; rating input score 71; 12th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 10.7%; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.37; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.58; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 2.5%; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 12.9% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 12.7% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 26.3% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 2 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 82.8% of revenue deployed · 94.6% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 10 of 14 board members independent · 1 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.8M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $50K · 15 people listed
- Consistency: 27 of 28 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
- Filing history: 6 filing years from 2017 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 4 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.
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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 7 not reported.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 7/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 48/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 17/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.