Electronic Check Clearing House Organization Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
943114599
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2017
Forms available
Form 990 2017
Location
Dallas, TX, USA
Phone
2142733200
Rating
45
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Chambers of Commerce & Business Leagues

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,987,236
Expenses
$7,102,953
Assets
$624,476
Liabilities
$5,888

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

27 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DAVID WALKER (CEO/PRESIDENT)
  • ELIZABETH WESTBROOK (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • DAVID WALKER (CEO/PRESIDENT): $1,705,094 total reported compensation
  • PHYLLIS MEYERSON (EXECUTIVE VP): $1,015,569 total reported compensation
  • ELIZABETH WESTBROOK (Vice President): $560,061 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The organization has three primary strategic priorities within the banking/check imaging arena (1) rules development and maintenance (2) industry advocacy in the field of banking and (3) industry education. At the Board of Directors meeting held in November 2017, the Board determined to sell selected assets and liabilties and to dissolve the organization by April 30, 2018.

What it reported doing in 2017

Electronic Check Clearing House Organization (ECCHO) is a California based 501(c)(6) Not-For-Profit, mutual benefit, national clearinghouse that is 100% owned by its member institutions. Any depository financial institution, regardless of size, is eligible for membership in ECCHO. ECCHOs primary activities can be divided among three functions: 1)Rules and Development and maintenance, 2) Industry Education and 3) Industry Advocacy.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 100% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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.

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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 88
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 12
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

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: 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: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 56
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -78.1%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.09; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 57.8%; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 4.3% per year; rating input score 100; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -0.7% per year; rating input score 0; 22nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 20 of 20 board members independent · 5 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $1.7M · 27 people listed · 5 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $1.5M reported
  • Consistency: 12 of 13 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2010 to 2017
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 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 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 1/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 2/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 0/100.