Friends Council on Education

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
231352147
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Philadelphia, PA, USA
Phone
2152417245
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Primary, Elementary Schools

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,269,375
Expenses
$1,191,657
Assets
$20,034,180
Liabilities
$8,509,898

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

Leadership & pay

26 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DREW SMITH (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • ALEX HANSON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-FRIENDS COLLABORATIVE)

Highest reported compensation

  • DREW SMITH (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $195,595 total reported compensation
  • ALEX HANSON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-FRIENDS COLLABORATIVE): $126,255 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The mission of the friends council on education is to provide leadership in drawing friends schools together in unity of spirit and cooperative endeavors. The council's work nurtures the quaker life of schools, strengthens the network of support across schools, promotes friends education through consultations, programs and publications and assists in the establishment of new friends schools. The council helps friends schools maintain their quaker identity and ethos, and their relationship with the religious society of friends. The council promotes professional growth for trustees, heads, adminstrators and faculty to further the goals of quaker education and serves as a voice for friends schools in the national dialogue on education.

What it reported doing in 2024

Professional development for faculty, administrators, trustees and staff of friends schools in areas of school governance, peace education, service learning, community building, promoting quaker values and testimonies in school life and developing future leaders for friends school.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 71% for direct work, and 29% for grants.

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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 74
  • Transparency & Controls: 57
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 56
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 83.2%; rating input score 83
  • Program expense ratio: 80.3%; rating input score 80
  • Fundraising efficiency: $4.47 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 86.7%; rating input score 87; 3rd 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: 55.6%; rating input score 56; 30th 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: 8 of 8 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: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 6.1%; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 16.81; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.42; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 27%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1.2% per year; rating input score 100; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -2.1% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.5% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 83.2% of revenue deployed · 80.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 24 of 24 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $957K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $196K · 26 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 31 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 14 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 12 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 15/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 56/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 53/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 8/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 18/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.