Salisbury School Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 060646888
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
- Location
- Salisbury, CT, USA
- Phone
- 8604355711
- Rating
- 75
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Secondary, High School
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $49,768,685
- Expenses
- $35,616,937
- Assets
- $268,303,344
- Liabilities
- $47,012,373
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
42 people listed
Highest reported compensation
- WILLIAM V WEBB (HEAD OF SCHOOL): $523,475 total reported compensation
- ROBERT D WYNNE (ASSOCIATE HEAD OF SCHOOL): $481,236 total reported compensation
- VAFA VAHID (CHIEF FINANCIAL OPERATING OFFICER): $373,947 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Salisbury school was founded to instill a vibrant enthusiasm for learning and the self-confidence needed for intellectual, physical, moral and spiritual development. Though we are a non-denominational school open to boys of all belief systems, spiritual exploration is one of our core traditions.built on essential core values, the school's unique culture promotes brotherhood, creativity, empathy, humility, integrity, leadership and respect. Salisbury graduates are men of character and promise who are prepared to meet the challenges of college and adulthood and to make a difference in an entrepreneurial, technological and cosmopolitan world.
What it reported doing in 2024
Salisbury school is an independent boy's secondary school (grades 9 through 12) for approximately 307 boarding and day students.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 81% 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. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 64
- Transparency & Controls: 74
- Accountability: 91
- Sustainability: 78
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 63%; rating input score 63
- Program expense ratio: 77.6%; rating input score 78
- Fundraising efficiency: $7.21 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 20th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
- Compensation committee: Pass
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Scored; rating input score 0
- Grant itemization coverage: 99.9%; rating input score 100; 40th 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: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 28.4%; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 7.53; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.18; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 7.6%; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 2.4% per year; rating input score 100; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 2.5% per year; rating input score 100; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 2.2% per year; rating input score 100; 19th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 63% of revenue deployed · 77.6% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 33 of 33 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $27.7M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $523K · 42 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $2.8M reported
- Consistency: 39 of 40 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 12 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, 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
- 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.
- Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 29/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 32/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.