Electronic Literature Organization

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
364314614
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2023–2025
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2018
Location
Vancouver, WA, USA
Phone
3605469101
Rating
86
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Remedial Reading, Reading Encouragement

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$76,860
Expenses
$62,074
Assets
$65,527

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ANASTASIA SALTER (President)

People named in this filing

  • DENE GRIGAR (Treasurer)
  • DAVIN HECKMAN (Secretary)
  • ANASTASIA SALTER (President)

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

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

An international organization dedicated to the investigation, preservation, and promotion of literature produced for the digital medium.

What it reported doing in 2025

Maintaining an electonic museum, library, and preservation space to provide accessibility to electronic literature for future generations.

Operating model

Revenue model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent revenue detail to tell how this nonprofit funds its work.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Program spending has declined or grown slowly and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 81
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Sustainability: 54
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 74.1%; rating input score 74
  • Program expense ratio: 91.8%; rating input score 92

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 19.2%; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.06; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -3.4% per year; rating input score 0; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.9% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 14.6% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 4 programs and campaigns described on the official site
  • Where the money goes: 74.1% of revenue deployed · 91.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 2 filed program accomplishments · $57K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 6 of 6 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2023 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 49/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.