Echoes Around the World

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
251923466
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2020
Location
Devon, PA, USA
Phone
6107245673
Rating
55
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Single Organization Support

Reported finances

Revenue
$162,598
Expenses
$73,765
Assets
$164,706
Liabilities
$7,003

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • NEREIDA GORDAN (CO-PRESIDENT)
  • MARTIN KIMMEL (CO-PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • PETER MOTEL (DIRECTOR)
  • EILEEN KRAUT (DIRECTOR)
  • STEVEN GLUCKMAN (DIRECTOR)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

See schedule o

What it reported doing in 2024

Double cure hospital and school of nursing and midwifery. Echoes (www.supportechoes.com) supports the double cure medical center, in mpigi, uganda, which serves the community of mpigi and its outlying villages to pay various expenses such as outreach and supplies. Echoes provides funding for the doctors and nurses to go on outreach missions to provide medical assistance to those who cannot get into the center. Echoes provided ongoing assistance with supplies and furnishing at the center. Ongoing building maintenance, supplies and textbooks for the trinity childrens school and boys dorms. Support for the matrons salaries and scholarships for the children attending the school.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

MIXED - 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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 38
  • Transparency & Controls: 75
  • Accountability: 64
  • Sustainability: 74
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 26.6%; rating input score 27
  • Program expense ratio: 58.7%; rating input score 59
  • Fundraising efficiency: $6.82 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Fail
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 80th 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: 1 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 14
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 54.6%; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.23; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.04; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -10.8% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -3.4% per year; rating input score 0; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 0% per year; rating input score 100; 25th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 26.6% of revenue deployed · 58.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $43K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 13 people listed
  • Consistency: 23 of 25 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and grants
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2014 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 27/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 8 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 59/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 29/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 34/100.