ECHC Foundation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 263359418
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2010
- Forms available
- Form 990 2010
- Location
- Duluth, MN, USA
- Phone
- 6515820270
- Rating confidence
- Limited
- Sector
- Fund Raising and/or Fund Distribution
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $822,440
- Expenses
- $557,159
- Assets
- $4,187,354
- Liabilities
- $19,853
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2010. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
9 people listed
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2010. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
See schedule o
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 61% 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.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
- Transparency & Controls: 87
- Accountability: 92
- Sustainability: 78
- Growth: NotEnoughData
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: Limited
- Program expense ratio: Limited
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 12th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 5 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 83
- Compensation committee: Pass
- Independent consultant: Pass
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Pass
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 98.3%; rating input score 98; 41st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Scored; rating input score 0
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 20th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- 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: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 32.3%; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 7.52; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 55.6%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: Limited
- Asset growth: Limited
Details
- Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
- Governance: 6 of 7 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $532K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $688K · 9 people listed · 5 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 20 of 21 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, executive pay, and related organizations
- Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 36 filed related-organization links
- 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: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 1/100.