Friends of Ngong Road

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
204690846
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Minneapolis, MN, USA
Phone
6125684211
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Support N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,187,604
Expenses
$1,190,089
Assets
$2,889,917
Liabilities
$56,981

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CAROLE PATRIKAKOS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (THRU 07/25))
  • DAN FERNELIUS (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • CAROLE PATRIKAKOS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (THRU 07/25)): $132,059 total reported compensation
  • DAN FERNELIUS (PRESIDENT): $73,950 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

We empower nairobi children living in poverty to transform their lives through education.

What it reported doing in 2025

We empower nairobi children living in poverty to transform their lives through education and support, leading to employment. We have implemented a thorough review process to select students with a high probability of success. The program offers children support in three key areas: education (school fees, uniforms, books and supplies), safety and well-being (breakfast and lunch each weekday, home environment safety checks by our caseworkers plus basic medical care), supportive community (caseworker support, saturday child development program, lending library, computer lab and annual camp experience for every child). From inception through 2025, the program has served approximately 700 children.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 96% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 95% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 53
  • Transparency & Controls: 74
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 43
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 55.9%; rating input score 56
  • Program expense ratio: 53.2%; rating input score 53
  • Fundraising efficiency: $10.06 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 35; 35th 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: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Limited
    • Conducts field audits: Limited
    • May suspend future funding: Limited
    • Requires financial reports: Limited
    • Conducts site visits: Limited
    • Requires grant agreements: Limited
    • May require repayment: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 78th 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; 64th 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: -0.2%; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.43; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 17.3%; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -0.8% per year; rating input score 0; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.9% per year; rating input score 100; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 9.7% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 55.9% of revenue deployed · 53.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $633K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $132K · 13 people listed
  • Consistency: 33 of 34 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2012 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 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.

Key Signals

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

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 56/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 53/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 35/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 29/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 20/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D revenue reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 53/100.