Education with Purpose Foundation for Pacific Islanders

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
275022461
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2016
Location
Kent, WA, USA
Phone
2063495127
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Student Services, Organizations of Students

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$178,087
Expenses
$178,087
Assets
$178,087
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Naomi Tagaleo'o (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Naomi Tagaleo'o (Executive Director): $97,119 total reported compensation
  • Andrea Iosua-Tinae (Administrative Assistant): $9,272 total reported compensation
  • Fale Lautalo (Independent Contractor): $1,500 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

We are a 501C 3 Non-profit organization. Our mission is to impact the parent-to student relationship of each Pacific Islander family and youth of culture that we serve. We pride ourselves in developing programs and hosting events that encourage families to work together in order to help their children pursue meaningful goals and higher education with purpose.

What it reported doing in 2024

Our virtual after school program, entitled "Scholars with Purpose" enabled us to provide direct services to 9th -12th grade students and their families. Each quarter during the school year (excluding summer), we served 30 families through 3 sessions of our programs, totaling 90 students during the 2024 calendar year. We provide academic, social and emotional support through our after school curriculum which has helped 90 students achieve their academic, cultural and career path goals.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 75% for direct work, and 25% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 89
  • Transparency & Controls: 43
  • Accountability: 91
  • Sustainability: 40
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 1.1%; rating input score 1; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 0%; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 61.8%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -5.1% per year; rating input score 0; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -14.9% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 9.4% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $178K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $97K · 7 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 21 of 22 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 1/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 39/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 41/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 2/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.