The Farley Project Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
453573947
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2013–2014
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2014, Form 990-N 2012
Location
Framingham, MA, USA
Phone
2134880000
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Youth Development Programs

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$42,829
Expenses
$28,448
Assets
$24,546

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

2 people listed

People named in this filing

  • ELISSA KRAVETZ (DIRECTOR)
  • BARBARA KRAVETZ (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 2014. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To empower youth to be fully self-expressed, aware and compassionate individuals.

What it reported doing in 2014

The farley project assemblies show a 360 perspective of bullying through the eyes of bullied victims, former bullies and the parents of bullied victims. The farley project curriculum is a 7-week course in getting kids connected to themselves and with one another. We do this through a series of weekly exercises and homework. Our farley project ambassadors conduct hour long weekly meetings with small groups of students (between 10-20 chosen by the school). The students have weekly homework assignments and are encouraged to journal during the process. In 2014 the farley project continued giving assemblies in public schools in the greater los angeles area, we also ran our full curriculum in some of those schools, and gave one assembly in an international school in bali. We spent significant time editing, re-writing and expanding our school curriculum, in order to train ambassadors to run our program in several schools nationwide.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue has grown recently. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 57
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 54
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 47.5%; rating input score 48
  • Program expense ratio: 71.5%; rating input score 72

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 33.6%; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.86; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 66.8%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 100.4% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 82.9% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 47.5% of revenue deployed · 71.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $20K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 2 people listed
  • Consistency: 6 of 6 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2013 to 2014
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 48/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 44/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 1/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.