Students for Other Students
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 341625186
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2010–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2025
- Location
- Toledo, OH, USA
- Phone
- 4198437262
- Rating
- 85
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $6,999
- Expenses
- $137,249
- Assets
- $4,797
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
8 people listed
People named in this filing
- FORD B CAUFFIEL (TRUSTEE)
- MICHAEL M BRILEY (TRUSTEE)
- DR PHILIP D VRZAL (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-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To provide funds to educational facilities for tutoring.
What it reported doing in 2025
The organization provides funding to individual schools or school districts to pay student tutors up to 8.00 an hour to tutor students who are "falling through the cracks". The recipient school's coordinator locates, trains, and supervises qualified students to serve as tutors and uses the sos funding to pay the tutors. Each participating school is required to submit a report at the end of the school year that includes budgetary information and an evaluation of the program including pre- and post-tutor grades, performance on standardized testing; evaluations for teachers, students (tutees and tutors), parents and the school coordinator, etc. S.o.s. Reviews these evaluations to ensure continued success and future funding.
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 99% 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. Expenses are high relative to revenue and revenue has declined or grown slowly.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 100
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 10
- Growth: 40
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: -1,861%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.03; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 3.2% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -0.6% per year; rating input score 0; 47th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -0.8% per year; rating input score 0; 35th 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 · $137K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 8 people listed
- Consistency: 7 of 7 current checks pass
- Schedules: 2 filed schedules
- Filing history: 16 filing years from 2010 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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 1/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 9/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.