Extra Mile Education Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
251621067
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2025
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Pittsburgh, PA, US
Phone
412.456.3103
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Elementary, Secondary Education, K - 12
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,467,350
Expenses
$2,447,982
Assets
$17,407,892
Liabilities
$547,540

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

Leadership & pay

17 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SUZANNE M VERTOSICK (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • SUZANNE M VERTOSICK (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $166,096 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Through financial support of the three neighborhood parochial schools, urban families have access to a quality, values-based pre-kindergarten through eighth grade education for their children.

What it reported doing in 2025

Inner-city elementary school operationsthe schools supported include st. Benedict the moor in the hill district, sr. Thea bowman catholic academy in wilkinsburg, and northside catholic assumption academy in pittsbugh's northside. Scholarship support is provided for children attending christ the divine teacher catholic academy, divine mercy academy, guardian angel academy, holy family catholic school, madonna catholic regional school, mary of nazareth, our lady of fatima school, sacred heart elementary, saint monica catholic academy, and oakland catholic.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 80% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 93% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • 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. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and revenue has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 83
  • Transparency & Controls: 70
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 52
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 71.1%; rating input score 71
  • Fundraising efficiency: $8.64 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.4%; rating input score 94; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 82.8%; rating input score 83; 28th 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: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 0.8%; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 7.11; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.8%; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1.6% per year; rating input score 100; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -3.1% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -1% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 2 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 4 operating locations identified
  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 71.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $1.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $166K · 17 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 37 of 38 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2012 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 5 filed related-organization links
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 30/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 29/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Document-retention policy not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 46/100.