Empowering Education International

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
814136020
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Keller, TX, USA
Phone
9728968494
Rating
62
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fund Raising and Fund Distribution

Reported finances

Revenue
$586,189
Expenses
$518,433
Assets
$236,002
Liabilities
$581

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • David Bream (President)
  • Arturo Enrique Montenegro (Vice-President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Isabel Ruiz (Director): $17,190 total reported compensation
  • Sean Warner (Treasurer): $5,730 total reported compensation
  • Cindy Hendrickson (Key Employee): $4,800 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

EEIs purpose is to provide for the spiritual, educational, emotional, and physical needs of children in impoverished areas of the world. One of the programs is a child sponsorship program that provides families can sponsor children on a monthly basis to pay their educational expenses

What it reported doing in 2024

Child Sponsorship Program - In 2024, EEI had 374 children sponsored in Honduras and 164 children sponsored in Uganda by US families. These families gave $45 or more per month and other special donations to take take care of the childs education expenses, such as uniforms, lunch money, school fees, tutoring, etc. EEI provides the connection between the families and their sponsor child; providing pictures and backgrounds of the child and their families and periodic letters and updates from the child. EEI also trains the Honduras Education Program and the Double Hope Orphanage in Uganda in implementing the program; training them on screening the children to enter the program to ensure that the children chosen are the greates in need and also that procedures are followed during the school year to ensure that report cards are submitted to show attendance and grades. to Uganda to check on the program. Numerous video calls were done to check on the program to see that the program was working well and to see the fruit of their labors. Also building projects are done to provide facilities for this education.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 82% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 80
  • Transparency & Controls: 54
  • Accountability: 31
  • Sustainability: 51
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 85.8%; rating input score 86
  • Program expense ratio: 97%; rating input score 97
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • 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; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • 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: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: 11.6%; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.46; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.3%; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 12.9% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 15.9% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 28.2% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 85.8% of revenue deployed · 97% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 6 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $503K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $17K · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 22 of 23 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 7 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 21/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 52/100.