Summit Academy Transition High School - Cincinnati - C/o Summit Academy Manageme

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
201437962
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Akron, OH, USA
Phone
3306708470
Rating
63
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Charter Schools

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,254,943
Expenses
$1,254,943
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

19 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JOHN GUYER (CEO)
  • HEATHER SINGER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF CURRICULUM)

Highest reported compensation

  • JOHN GUYER (CEO): $253,000 total reported compensation
  • MICHAEL MARK (DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS): $223,504 total reported compensation
  • AMY COLE (VP OF HR): $193,659 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Summit academy schools build hope, success & well-being through advocacy & education for children with special needs.

What it reported doing in 2024

Summit academy schools provides a nurturing educational environment for over 1,800 students across Ohio. Nineteen percent of these students are on the autism spectrum, thirty-six percent are sld (adhd), ten percent are emotionally disturbed, three percent have other disabilities, and the remaining thirty-two percent are regular education services. In addition to our highly specialized curriculum, our students are involved in therapeutic martial arts and educational field trips.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 98% 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

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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 78
  • Transparency & Controls: 70
  • Accountability: 38
  • Sustainability: 20
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 87.8%; rating input score 88
  • Program expense ratio: 87.8%; rating input score 88
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 16.7%; rating input score 17; 9th 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: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 0%; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 15.5%; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -0.4% per year; rating input score 0; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.3% per year; rating input score 100; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -1.1% per year; rating input score 0; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 87.8% of revenue deployed · 87.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 1 of 6 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $253K · 19 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $1.3M reported
  • Consistency: 11 of 11 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Related organizations: 22 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.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 17/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 36/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 22/100.