Medical Academy Charter School
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 453176345
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2012–2014
- Forms available
- Form 990 2014
- Location
- Catasauqua, PA, USA
- Phone
- 6104031150
- Rating
- 60
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Charter Schools
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $2,322,390
- Expenses
- $2,438,140
- Assets
- $291,953
- Liabilities
- $2,346,312
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
11 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- CRAIG HAYTMANEK MD (President)
- JOANNA HUGHES (CEO)
Highest reported compensation
- JOANNA HUGHES (CEO): $90,831 total reported compensation
- MARIA SHIRAR (Teacher): $43,599 total reported compensation
- ALLAN SNYDER (Teacher): $37,634 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
It is the mission of the Medical Academy
What it reported doing in 2014
The school's mission is to prepare students for future careers in the rapidly growing health care sciences industry. This will be accomplished by providing a comprehensive, rigorous curriculum with a strong health care sciences focus and through the involvement with individuals and organizations that represent the health care sciences industry. Upon graduation students will be epxected to enter either technical or college degree programs in the health care sciences.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 100% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program 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.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 48
- Transparency & Controls: 64
- Accountability: 86
- Sustainability: 13
- Growth: 80
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 55%; rating input score 55
- Program expense ratio: 52.4%; rating input score 52
- 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: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -5%; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.12; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 8.04; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 7.1%; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 21.7% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 25.4% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -15.7% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 55% of revenue deployed · 52.4% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.3M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $91K · 11 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $515K reported
- Consistency: 29 of 29 current checks pass
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay
- Filing history: 3 filing years from 2012 to 2014
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 3 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.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 55/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 52/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 9 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 17/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 4/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 33/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.