Fryeburg Academy Alumni Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
010423877
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2020, Form 990-EZ 2024
Location
Fryeburg, ME, USA
Phone
2079352001
Rating
89
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Federated Giving Programs

Reported finances

Revenue
$41,780
Expenses
$28,230
Assets
$330,591
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DANA CHARLES (PAST PRESIDENT)
  • DAWN GALE (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • DANA CHARLES (PAST PRESIDENT)
  • CHRISTOPHER DUTTON (TREASURER)
  • JENNIFER BARTLETT (DIRECTOR)

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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

School alumni association

What it reported doing in 2024

The object of the association is to promote the material welfare, add to the educational facilities and secure the continuing usefulness of the fryeburg academy high school to the generations to come as it already served those in the past. The objective is accomplished through the organization of alumni events, the contribution of funds to the school for long-term projects, the advancement of scholarship monies for students, purchase of necessary school supplies, and other activities deemed necessary to advance the causes of the fryeburg academy.

Operating model

Revenue model
Investment-supported. 89% of the money available for current operations came from recurring investment income.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 95% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 94
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 81
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 82.5%; rating input score 83

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 32.4%; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 11.71; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.4% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.6% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.2% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 82.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $23K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 12 people listed
  • Consistency: 9 of 9 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 4 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.

  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.