Saylor Family Education Scholarship Trust

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
467075602
IRS 990 coverage
2021–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2020
Location
Necedah, WI, USA
Rating
58
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Scholarships, Student Financial Aid Services, Awards

Reported finances

Revenue
$196,077
Expenses
$16,545
Assets
$744,733
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

People named in this filing

  • MARK M BECKER (TRUSTEE)
  • LAURIE BROWN (TRUSTEE)
  • SANDRA L HATCH (TRUSTEE)

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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To support the necedah area school district by providing financial grants to be used for scholarships and education related assistance for students residing in the district.

What it reported doing in 2025

After school program distribution the necedah area school district received a trust distribution grant of 2000 to support its after school program (asp) in 2024. The asp for 2024 served up to 100 third through high school students, who through test scores, and teacher/parent input, have shown the need for additional academic support to be successful in their daily classrooms. The asp, which is located within the necedah area school building, runs four days a week from 3:20 p.m. To 6:00 p.m., providing reading, math, homework assistance and other skill development for students based on their individual needs. The asp is supported by a coordinator, six teachers/ teacher aides, two volunteers, and 5 pupil assistant leaders (pals). The asp students come from economically disadvantaged households, and virtually all of them qualify for free or reduced school lunch because of their low household income. With limited experiences outside of necedah, Wisconsin, these students have little exposure to the outside world where they might develop an understanding of or interest in a variety of potential career opportunities. The 2000.00 grant from the saylor family educational scholarship trust was earmarked to assist in funding the career-focused field trips by which all necedah area school district asp students are invited to travel to nearby cities to learn about potential careers. The grant covered 40% of the total costs (including buses used to transport the students) for these field trips. Trip 1: Wisconsin rapids, Wisconsin 45 students, grades 3-5 costs include: bus per mile, driver, staff, pals, tickets focus of trip: physical activity: wood county ymca trip 2: upham woods, Wisconsin dells, Wisconsin 30 students, grades 3-5 cost include: bus per mile, driver, staff, pals focus of trip: science: nature trip 3: uw madison, Wisconsin 32 students, grades 3-5 cost include: bus per mile, driver, staff, pals, program facilitation focus of trip: science: nature: limnology lab, nature preserve trip 4: uw madison, Wisconsin 22 students, grades 3-5 costs include: bus per mile, driver, staff, pals focus of trip: science: health: sleep clinic and medical research

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 87% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 32
  • Transparency & Controls: 75
  • Accountability: 64
  • Sustainability: 92
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 13.7%; rating input score 14
  • Program expense ratio: 72.5%; rating input score 73
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 88.9%; rating input score 89; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 50%; rating input score 50; 45th 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: 1 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 14
    • 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: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 91.6%; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 45.01; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4.8% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 20.5% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 23.1% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 13.7% of revenue deployed · 72.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $12K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 13 of 14 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2021 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 14/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 6 not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 50/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.