Ella Baker Institute Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
873037131
IRS 990 coverage
2022–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2021
Location
Brooklyn, NY, USA
Phone
9174054495
Rating
59
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Service Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$660,211
Expenses
$1,035,000
Assets
$47,136
Liabilities
$20,585

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • Patrice Fenton (Executive Dir.): $141,200 total reported compensation
  • Addae Cox (Director): $128,416 total reported compensation
  • Ade Cox (Director): $116,950 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Our vision is that education can serve as a connective force that cultivates leaders who can catalyze community well-being. In service of our vision, EBI's mission is to provide community-responsive learning experiences where young people lead and communities gain the holistic supports they need to thrive as radical change-makers in their communities and beyond.

What it reported doing in 2024

Ella Baker Institute continued its afterschool programming across three Brooklyn, NY sites, deepening its commitment to youth leadership and community-centered development. Building on the success of prior years, the organization remained focused on developing servant leadership through meaningful, real-world experiences. Our part-time staff, reflecting the diversity of the communities served, continued to receive targeted professional development and participated in regular evaluations to support program quality and consistency. Their presence remained essential in guiding students through career-connected projects that tied learning to impact. This year? s student-led initiatives have continued to evolve. Building on earlier projects that addressed housing insecurity and neighborhood cleanliness, participants began exploring new and expanded challenges within their communities. Projects were developed using participatory approaches that empowered students to research, plan, and implement their own solutions. Some projects revisited prior themes with deeper engagement, while others explored new areas such as food equity, mental health awareness, and environmental justice.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 68% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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

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

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 64
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 10
  • Sustainability: 4
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 81.1%; rating input score 81
  • Program expense ratio: 51.8%; rating input score 52
  • Fundraising efficiency: $3.87 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -56.8%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.05; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.44; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 47.5%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 108.5% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 21.9% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -56.6% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 81.1% of revenue deployed · 51.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 4 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $536K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $141K · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 24 of 24 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2022 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.

  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 52/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 12/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 2/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 3/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 2/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 18/100.