Side by Side Charter School Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
223208841
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Norwalk, CT, USA
Phone
2038570306
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Vocational, Technical Schools

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,793,287
Expenses
$3,775,568
Assets
$5,731,482
Liabilities
$1,664,592

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MATTHEW NITTOLY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • MATTHEW NITTOLY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $230,936 total reported compensation
  • MARY NEWBERY (ASSISTANT DIRECTOR): $194,639 total reported compensation
  • HELEN CONROY (FACULTY MEMBER): $144,198 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Side by side charter school is a charter school that was created to reduce racial isolation by providing a multiracial learning environment for urban and suburban children and their families.

What it reported doing in 2024

A school located in the inner city of norwalk, ct that maintains an approximate student ratio of 30% hispanic, 30% african americans, and 40% caucasian students located from both urban and suburban areas. Students located in both urban and suburban areas. Students come from approximately 14 towns including norwalk.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 84% 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 - 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 a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 80
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 50
  • Sustainability: 37
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 78.3%; rating input score 78
  • Program expense ratio: 78.8%; rating input score 79
  • Fundraising efficiency: $616.24 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 96; 96th 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: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 50%; rating input score 50; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 0.5%; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.52; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.29; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 21.9%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1.9% per year; rating input score 100; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.2% per year; rating input score 100; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 9% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 78.3% of revenue deployed · 78.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 10 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $231K · 13 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $125K reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 31 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 50/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 35/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 52/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 11/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 35/100.