Glenwood Academy Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
264818979
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Sykesville, MD, USA
Phone
4104896959
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Primary, Elementary Schools

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,238,353
Expenses
$2,990,072
Assets
$3,570,019
Liabilities
$2,421,244

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Jonathan Major (Board President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Rebecca Rider (Head of School): $161,398 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To provide education and related support services to children in grades one through twelve with language based learning differences such as dysgraphia, dyscalculia, dyslexia, and language processing difficulties.

What it reported doing in 2024

General operations and instructional costs of school for children with language based learning differences such as Dysgraphia, Dyscalculia and Dyslexia in grades one through twelve. Through an engaging, multi sensory, developmental, language intensive curriculum, Glenwood Academy helps students to evolve and discover his or her individual potential for greatness. The program promotes selfadvocacy by empowering our students. Students are encouraged to develop their independence and discover their voice. Students are taught through multi sensory handson learning strategies which are powerful learning methods. Students learn by participating in active learning and project focused curriculum with small class sizes.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 80% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 97% 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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 65
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 77
  • Sustainability: 47
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 67.8%; rating input score 68
  • Program expense ratio: 74.1%; rating input score 74
  • Fundraising efficiency: $6.38 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 23; 23rd 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: 87.5%; rating input score 88; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: 7.7%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.19; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.68; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.4%; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 17.8% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 21.8% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 27.2% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 67.8% of revenue deployed · 74.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 8 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $2.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $161K · 8 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 33 of 33 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2016 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 23/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 57/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 43/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 14/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 51/100.