Eat the Elephant

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
334700167
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2025–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025
Location
Trabuco Canyon, CA, USA
Phone
3236960770
Rating
49
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Elementary, Secondary Education, K - 12

Reported finances

Revenue
$75,000
Expenses
$30,747
Assets
$75,000
Liabilities
$30,747

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

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Kenneth Woodall (Chief Executive Officer)
  • Ryan Vatan (Chief Operating Officer, Secretary, Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Kenneth Woodall (Chief Executive Officer)
  • Ryan Vatan (Chief Operating Officer, Secretary, Vice President)
  • Sheila (Vatan)

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 educational support services, workshops, programming, and humanitarian infrastructure development aimed at addressing issues in global communities.

What it reported doing in 2025

Established and funded a humanitarian infrastructure research fellowship in partnership with California State Polytechnic University, Pomona. The program provided funding for 18 students and staff to travel to Southeast Asia in February 2026 to conduct site-specific research and urban design analysis. The project focused on developing sustainable humanitarian infrastructure solutions and improving local living conditions through technical architectural and engineering evaluation such as redeveloping 2 elementary schools, a civic center, and a new community park. Costs include travel for site evaluation and transporation for students and staff.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue comfortably covers expenses. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 11
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Sustainability: 72
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 7.4%; rating input score 7
  • Program expense ratio: 18%; rating input score 18

Transparency & Controls

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

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 59%; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.44; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.41; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: 7.4% of revenue deployed · 18% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $6K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 8 of 9 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules
  • 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 7/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 18/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part III transfer expenses within program total did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 8/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.