Friends of Wake

Legal name: Friends of the Wake County Guardian Ad Litem Program

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
581930264
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2024
Official website data refreshed
Jun 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2012
Location
Cary, NC, United States
Phone
9192105640
Rating
62
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Economic Development

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$128,366
Expenses
$162,971
Assets
$160,435
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LAURA GRUEBEL (PRESIDENT)
  • CATHERINE JOYNER (VICE PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • LAURA GRUEBEL (PRESIDENT)
  • CATHERINE JOYNER (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • NATHAN FORSHEY (TREASURER)

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

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

Overview

Mission

Friends of Wake exists to change the lives of abused and neglected children by supporting the work of Guardians ad Litem. In 1983, the North Carolina General Assembly established the Office of Guardian ad Litem (GAL) Services as a division of the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts. Pursuant to G.S. 7B-601, when a petition alleging abuse or neglect of a juvenile is filed in district court, the judge appoints a volunteer Guardian ad Litem advocate and an attorney advocate to provide team representation to the child. All Guardian ad Litem advocates are trained, supervised, and supported by program staff in each county of the state. To learn more, visit the Wake County GAL website. There are over 500 children in foster care in Wake County.

What it reported doing in 2024

Summer camp grants provide recreational and social support to children in need by providing an opportunity to interact and build relationships with others.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 70
  • Transparency & Controls: 59
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 34
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 84.6%; rating input score 85
  • Program expense ratio: 66.1%; rating input score 66
  • Fundraising efficiency: $2.43 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 81.8%; rating input score 82; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 0%; rating input score 0; 19th 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: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: -27%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.98; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -8.7% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -6.5% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.3% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 1 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 84.6% of revenue deployed · 66.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $108K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 16 of 18 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2013 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 11/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 11/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 40/100.