Salem Academy and College
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 560530005
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024, Form 990-N 2009
- Location
- Winstonsalem, NC, USA
- Phone
- 3369175764
- Rating
- 72
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Undergraduate College (4-year)
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $32,951,649
- Expenses
- $35,724,749
- Assets
- $113,423,987
- Liabilities
- $23,198,623
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
29 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- SUMMER MCGEE (PRESIDENT)
- TINA KRAMER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS)
- MEAGAN COUGHLIN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF MARKETING & COMM)
Highest reported compensation
- SUMMER MCGEE (PRESIDENT): $326,230 total reported compensation
- DAVID BROWNING (VP FINANCE/CFO): $195,838 total reported compensation
- JANAE JOYNER (CHIEF OF STAFF): $174,748 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
See schedule o
What it reported doing in 2024
Salem academy & college provides a college education to approximately 386 full time college students, a high school education to approximately 73 full time students (grades 9-12), and provides continuing education to approximately 103 part-time students throughout the community. The college also provides on-campus food services and housing to approximately 215 students who maintain residence on the campus of salem college, and 33 students who maintain residence at salem academy.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 57% for direct work, and 43% for 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. 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: 70
- Transparency & Controls: 71
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 41
- Growth: 20
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 78.8%; rating input score 79
- Program expense ratio: 68.3%; rating input score 68
- Fundraising efficiency: $8.13 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
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: 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; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- 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: -8.4%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.17; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.2; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 4.5%; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -4.6% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -0.3% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 1.1% per year; rating input score 100; 14th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 78.8% of revenue deployed · 68.3% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 19 of 19 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $24.4M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $326K · 29 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $4.5M reported
- Consistency: 37 of 37 current checks pass
- Schedules: 11 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 10 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
- 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.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 32/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 12/100.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 55/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 58/100.