Best Friends of Neenah-Menasha In

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
391260017
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2019
Forms available
Form 990 2019
Location
Neenah, WI, USA
Phone
9207295600
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Adult, Child Matching Programs

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$397,727
Expenses
$416,846
Assets
$295,778
Liabilities
$10,366

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2019. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Jaime Kriewaldt (Executive Director)
  • John Werner (President)
  • Tiffany Carter (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Jaime Kriewaldt (Executive Director): $69,395 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2019. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Helping young people thrive through the power of mentoring friendships and supportive family networks.

What it reported doing in 2019

In 2019, Best Friends of Neenah-Menasha helped over 307 at risk children and teens thrive through the power of mentoring friendships and supportive family networks. Through one-to-one mentoring Best Friends of Neenah-Menasha has been serving primarily at-risk children and teens throughout Neenah and Menash for 45 years. Unlike other mentoring organizations, Best Friends of Neenah-Menasha addresses multi-faceted issues of the entire family at the local level. We support one-to-one mentoring with a family component that is designed to eliminate family isolation within the community, provides financial assistance for enrichment opportunities and helps create a healthy environment where each child can thrive. Best Friends specifically serves young people between the age of 5 and 18 years of age who are categorized as at risk. Continued on Schedule O

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 94% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 99% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 74
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 32
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 84.1%; rating input score 84
  • Program expense ratio: 73.8%; rating input score 74
  • Fundraising efficiency: $5.39 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -4.8%; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.71; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.04; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 16.6%; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -0.8% per year; rating input score 0; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.9% per year; rating input score 100; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -4.2% per year; rating input score 0; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 84.1% of revenue deployed · 73.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $308K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $69K · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 31 of 32 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2010 to 2019
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 23/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 30/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 32/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 24/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 44/100.