Dallas Academy

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
751247831
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Dallas, TX, USA
Phone
2143241481
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$5,691,094
Expenses
$5,593,241
Assets
$8,986,833
Liabilities
$5,002,064

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • ELIZABETH MURSKI (HEADMASTER): $218,928 total reported compensation
  • JEREMY CIVELLO (DEAN/ATHLETIC DIRECTOR): $114,393 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Dallas academy restores the promise of full academic enrichment to students with learning differences. Our staff establishes a meaningful connection with each student to overcome barriers to success. Dallas academy offers a structured multisensory program for students with diagnosed learning differences in grades 3-12. Dallas academy believes that structure and a caring, experienced staff are the main factors for success. The classes provide a quiet, nurturing environment to students who in the past have had trouble with concentration and short attention spans. Many of these boys and girls are very frustrated and have not been successful in previous school settings. The mulisensory approach is especially beneficial to those students who have been diagnosed with dyslexia, dysgraphia and other learning differences.

What it reported doing in 2024

Private school provides an effective program and strategiesto meet the special educational needs of approximately 169bright students with diagnosed learning differences.

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.

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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 79
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 69
  • Sustainability: 42
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 87.1%; rating input score 87
  • Program expense ratio: 88.9%; rating input score 89
  • Fundraising efficiency: $3.43 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Limited
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 1.7%; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.61; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.56; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6%; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.2% per year; rating input score 100; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.8% per year; rating input score 100; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -1.3% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 87.1% of revenue deployed · 88.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 2 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $219K · 12 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 34 of 34 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 10/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 40/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 54/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 18/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 47/100.