Phoenix Village Academy Primary
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 201824149
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2017–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Cleveland, OH, USA
- Phone
- 2168120244
- Rating
- 81
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Primary, Elementary Schools
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,744,181
- Expenses
- $1,857,137
- Assets
- $1,254,884
- Liabilities
- $3,183,919
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
6 people listed
Highest reported compensation
- JAMES HARDIMAN (CHAIR): $875 total reported compensation
- SANDY JONES (DIRECTOR): $875 total reported compensation
- GEORGE FRASER (VICE CHAIR): $625 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 instruction at a public community school for grades three through six.
What it reported doing in 2024
Provided educational services to 99 students.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Grant-funded. 88% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
- 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
STRONG - 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 expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 77
- Transparency & Controls: 90
- Accountability: 84
- Sustainability: 27
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 88%; rating input score 88
- Program expense ratio: 82.7%; rating input score 83
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 5 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 62
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Limited
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Fail
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -6.5%; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.68; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 2.54; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0.2%; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 4.6% per year; rating input score 100; 40th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 3.3% per year; rating input score 100; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 12.5% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 88% of revenue deployed · 82.7% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 5 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.5M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $875 · 6 people listed
- Consistency: 24 of 24 current checks pass
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules
- Filing history: 8 filing years from 2017 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 5 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 22/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 31/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 1/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.