Skyline Education Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
270637062
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Chandler, AZ, USA
Phone
4807792010
Rating
64
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Charter Schools

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$9,421,837
Expenses
$10,125,228
Assets
$46,262,869
Liabilities
$46,566,876

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Ronda Owens (Founder/CEO)
  • Swen Anderson (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Ronda Owens (Founder/CEO): $188,907 total reported compensation
  • Zyzick Owens (Director): $184,808 total reported compensation
  • KJ Weihing (VP of Finance): $173,714 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 additional academic choices for parents and students that will improve pupil achievement through flexibility and innovation in key areas of operations and organizational structures.

What it reported doing in 2024

Support services for five Arizona Charter Schools in Maricopa County, Arizona including: a. Facilities maintenance, management and development. b. Human resources including payroll, benefits, and insurance. c. Financial management including, without limitation, oversight and coordination of auditing compliance in accordance with the charter contract with Arizona State Board of Charter Schools, procurement compliance, purchasing and consortium purchasing. d. Information technology maintenance, service and support, including but not limited to research, upgrades and facilitation of distance learning programs for teachers and staff of the respective Charter Holding Entities. e. Special education oversight and compliance with Federal and state requirements. f. Faculty training. g. Governing Board Member training. h. Marketing support. I. Curriculum development. j. Grant writing and funding. k. Transportation and support services..

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 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. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 83
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 28
  • Sustainability: 37
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 96.2%; rating input score 96
  • Program expense ratio: 89.5%; rating input score 89
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

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: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -7.5%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.57; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.01; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 7.1%; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 10.5% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9.3% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 25.9% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 96.2% of revenue deployed · 89.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 4 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $9.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $189K · 4 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 22 of 22 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2013 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 6 filed related-organization links
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 16/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 5/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 41/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.