Friends of School in the Hills

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
465198680
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2017–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2016
Location
Austin, TX, USA
Phone
5122666160
Rating
88
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Parent/Teacher Group

Reported finances

Revenue
$59,339
Expenses
$61,685
Assets
$143,745
Liabilities
$15,522

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

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ALICIA MARKER (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • DANIEL MARKER (VICE-PRESIDE)
  • ALICIA MARKER (PRESIDENT)
  • LISA CHALK (SECRETARY)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

Friends of school in the hills shall exist for the purpose of promoting activities that enhance the academic experience, joy, and well-being of the school in the hills students and staff in a way that complements and enriches the learning environment. Friends of school in the hills helps build community within the school, fosters the relationship between school, parents and the wider community, and encourages the investment of time, energy and financial support.

What it reported doing in 2025

Enhanced the academic experience, joy, and well-being of the school in the hills' students and staff

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 91% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
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.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Revenue has declined or grown slowly and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 100
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 46
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -4%; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.33; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.11; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 24.9% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -5.9% per year; rating input score 0; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 0.3% per year; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 2 filed program accomplishments · $62K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 7 of 7 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2017 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 36/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 15/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.