Summit Public Schools Washington

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
464118400
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2014
Location
Seattle, WA, USA
Phone
6502579880
Rating
79
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Education N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$19,234,296
Expenses
$21,516,549
Assets
$24,691,400
Liabilities
$21,065,219

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CADY CHING (CEO)
  • ANDREA KLEIN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • ANDREW CROOK (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • EDWARD LEE (CFO (LEFT FEB 2025)): $313,198 total reported compensation
  • CADY CHING (CEO): $313,167 total reported compensation
  • ANDREA KLEIN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $245,223 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 collectively prepare a diverse community of young people with the skills, knowledge, and habits to attain economic empowerment and success in a chosen concrete next step for a fulfilled life.

What it reported doing in 2024

Summit public schools Washington (sps wa) was formed to operate charter schools as provided in the Washington state charter schools act. Sps wa's mission is to provide educational, technical, and supporting services to the various schools in the state. During the year ended august 31, 2025, sps wa operated 3 schools and served approximately 860 students.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 78% 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 most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 83
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 24
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 97.7%; rating input score 98
  • Program expense ratio: 87.3%; rating input score 87
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

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: Limited
  • 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: -11.9%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.15; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.85; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.4%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 10.9% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.7% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 19.2% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 97.7% of revenue deployed · 87.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $18.8M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $313K · 11 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $1.9M reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 29 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2015 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 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.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 9/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 41/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 12/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.