Friends of the Chas County Library

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
570742388
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Charleston, SC, USA
Phone
8437620452
Rating
55
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$380,695
Expenses
$308,916
Assets
$410,444
Liabilities
$5,541

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • LEAH DONALDSON (DIRECTOR): $72,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Provide financial support for charleston county public libraries

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 94% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 77% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

MIXED - 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: 22
  • Transparency & Controls: 87
  • Accountability: 74
  • Sustainability: 55
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 22.8%; rating input score 23
  • Program expense ratio: 26.4%; rating input score 26
  • Fundraising efficiency: $1.84 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 95.1%; rating input score 95; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • 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: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 18.9%; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.33; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 23.3%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -5.6% per year; rating input score 0; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.5% per year; rating input score 100; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.8% per year; rating input score 100; 46th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 22.8% of revenue deployed · 26.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $81K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $72K · 12 people listed
  • Consistency: 27 of 28 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 23/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 26/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 9/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 48/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 16/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 43/100.