The French-american School of Rhode Island

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
050488405
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Providence, RI, USA
Phone
4012743325
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Primary, Elementary Schools

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,305,453
Expenses
$3,812,474
Assets
$8,150,240
Liabilities
$4,113,262

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • BENEDICTE BROUDER (HEAD OF SCHOOL): $238,085 total reported compensation
  • GAIL CAMPBELL (DIR. OF FINANCE START JULY 2021): $135,535 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The french american school of rhode islands (fasri) multilingual experience cultivates globally-minded, confident, creative learners.

What it reported doing in 2024

During the year, fasris teaching and learning and operational actions continues to be run in line with the 5-year strategic plan. The school continues an emphasis on student well-being, social, emotional and character development in academic program, fostering interdisciplinary project based learning, especially steam products. Fasri has engaged in thoughtful generative conversations and professional development in the realm of artificial intelligence, with the goal of integrating its use in a meaningful manner. The school collaborated with local organizations to develop outreach programs and expand connections within the community. Fasri continued to cultivate partnerships with sister schools in the french network to provide for the student agency.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 94% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 88% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 74
  • Transparency & Controls: 49
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 55
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 77.6%; rating input score 78
  • Program expense ratio: 89.6%; rating input score 90
  • Fundraising efficiency: $1.4 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 0%; rating input score 0; 6th 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: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 11.5%; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.14; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.5; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 9.8%; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.6% per year; rating input score 100; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.4% per year; rating input score 100; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 9.5% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 77.6% of revenue deployed · 89.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $3.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $238K · 11 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 33 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 3/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 21/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 30/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.