Friends for Life Corporation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
621511959
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Memphis, TN, USA
Phone
9012720855
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Residential Care & Adult Day Programs

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$11,483,965
Expenses
$9,606,801
Assets
$15,333,685
Liabilities
$10,265,640

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

Leadership & pay

20 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DIANE DUKE (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)
  • DR PATRICK BLANKINSHIP (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • DIANE DUKE (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER): $169,467 total reported compensation
  • ELISHA COTTON (CHIEF PROGRAMS OFFICER): $138,323 total reported compensation
  • RAMONA MOORE (NURSE PRACTITIONER): $104,793 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 friends for life corporation is to help persons affected by HIV/AIDS live well.

What it reported doing in 2024

Disseminate educational materials to the public in a effort to enlighten the masses on the dangers of AIDS and to acquaint the public with proven measures for the prevention of HIV/AIDS. This effort has the potential of reaching thousands of people thoughout the major memphis, tn metropolitan area. Programs include both prevention and educational activities coordinated though a series of highly specialized programs such as wellness university, the positive living center, and others.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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 total spending goes to programs and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 60
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 60
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 56.2%; rating input score 56
  • Program expense ratio: 67.1%; rating input score 67
  • Fundraising efficiency: $22.99 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 60; 60th 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: 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: 16.3%; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.6; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.67; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.3%; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6.9% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9.3% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 13.6% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 56.2% of revenue deployed · 67.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 16 of 16 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $6.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $169K · 20 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 4 contractors listed · $832K reported
  • Consistency: 33 of 33 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 56/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 53/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 19/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 49/100.