Friends of Ashland Seminary

Legal name: Ashland Theological Seminary Founda Tion

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
341202588
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Ashland, OH, United States
Phone
4192895161
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support
Affiliation
Religious (unspecified)

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$303,277
Expenses
$336,851
Assets
$3,347,333
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JOHN SHULTZ PHD (PRESIDENT &)

Highest reported compensation

  • DOUG COOPER (EXEC. DIR): $49,846 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

FAS raises and receives donations and supports Ashland Theological Seminary’s charitable, religious and educational purposes through donor-directed endowed/non-endowed funds and a grant request process. All funds granted to Ashland Theological Seminary by FAS comply with the ATS grant request process, guidelines set by donor intent, spending and administrative policy, and government regulations. Help us Get there. FAS raises and receives donations from individuals, families, and other aligned organizations. Donations are then placed in endowed or non-endowed funds. These funds can be restricted by donor intent or unrestricted to be used according to the needs of Ashland Theological Seminary and the discretion and policies of FAS. Funds are granted from FAS to Ashland Theological Seminary through a grant request process. FAS keeps a keen eye toward using our funds to generate...

What it reported doing in 2024

Funds provided to ashland theological seminary (graduate school of ashland university)for student scholarships

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 70% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 77
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 48
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 63.5%; rating input score 63
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 80th 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -11.1%; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 9.94; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 14.8%; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -0.8% per year; rating input score 0; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -4.1% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1.6% per year; rating input score 100; 32nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 63.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $214K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $50K · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 24 of 24 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 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.

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

  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 21/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 24/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.