Eleos Project

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
201740391
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2025
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2024
Location
Centennial, CO, USA
Phone
3038889929
Rating
50
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
International Development

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$232,518
Expenses
$219,524
Assets
$45,353
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Mark S Purington (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Mark S Purington (Executive Director): $79,400 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The mission of Eleos Project is to transform people's lives through clean water. We accomplish this through investing in people's lives with our time, knowledge and financial resources. Our focus is on those who lack access to clean water and especially those who suffer the most by not having this life-sustaining resource. Our target group is women and children as they are the ones who suffer the most when clean water is not available.

What it reported doing in 2025

PCEA Hospital borehole drilling and completion

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 81% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

MIXED - Program spending has grown recently. 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: 42
  • Transparency & Controls: 51
  • Accountability: 55
  • Sustainability: 36
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 45.8%; rating input score 46
  • Program expense ratio: 48.2%; rating input score 48
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 15th 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: 0%; rating input score 0; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 50%; rating input score 50; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 5.6%; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.21; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 36.2%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6.7% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.1% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.5% per year; rating input score 100; 33rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 6 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 3 operating locations identified
  • Where the money goes: 45.8% of revenue deployed · 48.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 1 of 2 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 5 filed program accomplishments · $106K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $79K · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 40 of 41 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2016 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 46/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 48/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 8 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 50/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 12/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 48/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 8/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.