Echo Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
952654647
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Culver City, CA, USA
Phone
3108382442
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Specialized Education Institutions

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$10,190,394
Expenses
$9,278,777
Assets
$13,549,351
Liabilities
$4,739,341

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

Leadership & pay

24 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DAVID STONE (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • SHARON TAL YGUADO (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • MARGARET PROCTER (HEAD OF SCHOOL): $401,168 total reported compensation
  • SAUNDRA SPARKS (CFO (THRU 06.24)): $171,877 total reported compensation
  • SAMUEL PATTERSON (MAKER SPACE COORDINATOR): $165,107 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Echo horizon school's mission is to cultivate a joyful community where children blossom into capable scholars and bold explorers of new possibilities. Through our pioneering co-enrollment model, we unite deaf and hard-of-hearing students with hearing peers, instilling lifelong communication skills and an authentic respect for diversity. Our graduates lead with kindness and integrity, and venture forth into the world with confidence and purpose.

What it reported doing in 2024

Echo foundation (the organization) is a nonprofit corporation incorporated in the state of California. The organization was founded in 1970. The organization operates the echo horizon school for grades pre-kindergarten through sixth in culver city, California. Echo serviced 198 students during fy 24/25.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 82% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 83% 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 - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 56
  • Transparency & Controls: 91
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 51
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 55.8%; rating input score 56
  • Program expense ratio: 62.6%; rating input score 63
  • Fundraising efficiency: $10.15 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 5 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 83
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd 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; 66th 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: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 8.9%; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.46; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.35; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 14.3%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0.1% per year; rating input score 100; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1% per year; rating input score 100; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -3.5% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 55.8% of revenue deployed · 62.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 16 of 16 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $5.8M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $401K · 24 people listed · 5 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 35 of 35 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 10 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 8 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 56/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 39/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 50/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 9/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 41/100.