Fraser Ltd

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
450226418
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Fargo, ND, USA
Phone
7012323301
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Residential Care & Adult Day Programs

Reported finances

Revenue
$13,959,341
Expenses
$14,300,215
Assets
$12,430,779
Liabilities
$2,552,708

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SANDRA LEYLAND (PRESIDENT/CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • SANDRA LEYLAND (PRESIDENT/CEO): $205,949 total reported compensation
  • JONATHAN KADRMAS (CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER): $107,895 total reported compensation
  • PATRICIA KALIBABKY (DIRECTOR OF CHILD CARE): $97,526 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Supporting children and adults on their life's journey to independence.

What it reported doing in 2024

Fraser ltd provides housing along with case management supports to adults (18 years +) with intellectual and developmental disabilities who require assistance in obtaining and meeting basic living requirements to live successfully as independent adults. Services include benefit and money management, obtaining medical and mental health services, independent living skill training includes appropriate socialization, recreation and leisure, apartment living skills and other skills necessary to transition to independence.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 64% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

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 some related-organization disclosures are missing.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 83
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 34
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 86.4%; rating input score 86
  • Program expense ratio: 84.3%; rating input score 84
  • Fundraising efficiency: $31.15 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

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: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Scored; rating input score 0

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: -2.4%; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.87; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.21; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 3.7%; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1.8% per year; rating input score 100; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.8% per year; rating input score 100; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.7% per year; rating input score 100; 47th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 86.4% of revenue deployed · 84.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $12.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $206K · 15 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $174K reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 33 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes executive pay and related organizations
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 7 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 — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 22/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 31/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 58/100.