The Lawrence N and Alice L Friedland Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
464244430
IRS 990-PF coverage
2016–2024
Forms available
Form 990-PF 2024
Location
New York, NY, USA
Phone
6465999251
Rating
90
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Philanthropy, Voluntarism, and Grantmaking Foundations N.E.C.

Reported finances

Revenue
$39,292
Expenses
$140,179

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

Overview

Mission

Philanthropy, Voluntarism, and Grantmaking Foundations N.E.C.

What it reported funding in 2024

The foundation reported 32 filed grant rows totaling $127,051. The stated grant purposes included donation, donation to support all of the urgent humanitarian needs of the american red cross, and donation to disaster relief, plus 10 other reported purposes.

Operating model

Revenue model
Investment-supported. 100% of the foundation's positive operating resources came from recurring investment income.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The foundation distributed 92% of its reported charitable disbursements as grants.
  • Includes asset-sale income: Asset-sale income is shown separately from recurring resources when classifying the revenue model.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes to charitable grants and the filed numbers largely add up. Assets provide a limited cushion relative to annual grants.

Rating breakdown

  • Grant Deployment: 100
  • Cost Efficiency: 91
  • Transparency: 100
  • Compliance: 100
  • Endowment Health: 13

Detailed rating inputs

Grant Deployment

  • Grant deployment ratio: 100%; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings

Cost Efficiency

  • Grant expense ratio: 90.6%; rating input score 91; 75th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency

  • Grant recipient disclosure: Yes; rating input score 100

Compliance

  • Foundation activity disclosures: 19 of 19 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Property sale or exchange with a disqualified person: Pass
    • Borrowing from or lending to a disqualified person: Pass
    • Goods, services, or facilities involving a disqualified person: Pass
    • Compensation paid to a disqualified person: Pass
    • Assets transferred to a disqualified person: Pass
    • Payment to a government official: Pass
    • Uncorrected prior self-dealing: Pass
    • Prior-year undistributed income: Pass
    • Excess business holdings: Pass
    • Investments that may jeopardize charitable purposes: Pass
    • Uncorrected prior-year jeopardizing investments: Pass
    • Attempt to influence legislation: Pass
    • Attempt to influence an election: Pass
    • Individual grants for travel, study or similar purposes: Pass
    • Grants outside qualifying charitable organization categories: Pass
    • Spending for a noncharitable purpose: Pass
    • Funds received for a personal-benefit contract: Pass
    • Premiums paid on a personal-benefit contract: Pass
    • Prohibited tax-shelter transaction: Pass
  • Filing consistency checks: 10; rating input score 100

Endowment Health

  • Endowment-health comparison: 6.1; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Grants: 100% of grant recipient detail disclosed
  • Payout: At least 100% grant deployment rate
  • Trustees: Filed trustees detail
  • Self-dealing: 100% of reviewed questions answered “No”
  • Investments: 13th percentile for endowment coverage
  • Consistency: 10 of 10 current checks pass
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2016 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 32 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 — Endowment Health: Endowment-health comparison scored 13/100.