Friends of Eagle Ridge Academy Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
475542621
IRS 990 coverage
2024–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2023, Form 990-N 2017
Location
Minnetonka, MN, USA
Phone
9527467760
Rating
64
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Parent/Teacher Group

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$141,403
Expenses
$53,324
Assets
$375,808
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KELLY SCHIFFMAN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • ALLISON BRADY (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • KELLY SCHIFFMAN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $110,401 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Friends of eagle ridge academy (fera), the academy's non-profit foundation, has a sole purpose to financially support eagle ridge academy and sustain it for future generations. With the immense growth of the academy, philanthropy is of the utmost importance. Fera plays an important role in building capacity and cultivating long-lasting relationships. Fera is a certified 501(c)(3) entity under the internal revenue code with accepted donations going to its sole beneficiary eagle ridge academy. All donations from individuals, corporations, grantors, and foundations are accepted and processed through fera.

What it reported doing in 2024

Funds are invested in fera's endowment and disbursed directly to the academy for its highest priority needs. Fera is qualified to receive tax-deductible donations, bequests, gifts of stocks and real estate, transfers, and in-kind gifts. It is governed by a board of directors who focus on short- and long-term strategy and planning for the future of eagle ridge academy.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 98% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 42
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 74
  • Sustainability: 79
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 30.1%; rating input score 30
  • Program expense ratio: 75.5%; rating input score 75
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 87.6%; rating input score 88; 51st 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 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: 62.3%; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 7.05; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 69.2%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 2% per year; rating input score 100; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 41.6% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 30.1% of revenue deployed · 75.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $40K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $110K · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 18 of 19 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 2 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 30/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 2/100.