Ecom Foundation for Development of Origin Resources

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
010775179
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Dallas, TX, USA
Rating
63
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
International Development

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$341,235
Expenses
$207,901
Assets
$388,699
Liabilities
$12,000

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • CHRISTOPH SCHMOKER (BOARD MEMBER): $16,642 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Founded in 2006, the ecom foundation for development of origin resources is a 501(c)(3) charity set up to support the global soft commodity farming communities from a social, educational and health perspective. The ecom foundation is committed to providing a sustainable relationship to ensure the social, economic, health and environmental wellbeing of rural growers, their families and communities in underdeveloped countries.

What it reported doing in 2024

$13,500 - grounds for health - kenya- project/goal: the single visit approach project in peru - grounds for health's simple and sustainable "single visit approach" helps prevent cervical cancer in low-resource coffee-growing areas. The single visit approach, which was pioneered through funding by the gates foundation, allows local health professionals to screen and treat women for cervical cancer in a single day. The ecom foundation funds training, new facilities and equipment.$10,000 - hoa trung nursery school in vietnam - the main goals for this project is to improve the school infrastructure for children of coffee farmers in di linh district, lam dong province. Also, to build and furnish a new nursery school in hoa trung to service 240 children.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 98% 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

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of total spending goes to programs. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 60
  • Transparency & Controls: 83
  • Accountability: 38
  • Sustainability: 65
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 55.4%; rating input score 55
  • Program expense ratio: 89.1%; rating input score 89
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Pass
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Pass
    • 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: 25%; rating input score 25; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 57
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Limited
    • Other executive compensation review process: Limited
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 39.1%; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.87; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 8%; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -2.6% per year; rating input score 0; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.5% per year; rating input score 100; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.9% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 55.4% of revenue deployed · 89.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 1 of 4 board members independent · 4 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $185K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $17K · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 19 of 19 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and grants
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 4 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 55/100.
  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 25/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 5 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 57/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 30/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 36/100.