Endangered Language Fund

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
061459207
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
New Haven, CT, USA
Phone
2038656163
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$332,942
Expenses
$325,028
Assets
$842,508
Liabilities
$35,206

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Shannon Bischoff (President)
  • Rebecca Wood (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • ROBERT C CARLSEN (Executive Dir.): $25,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Support for the documentation and revitalization of languages in danger of ceasing to be spoken grants to researchers and communities hosting grants funded by national science foundation

What it reported doing in 2024

Native Voices Endowment ELF provides grants for eligible tribes and languages through the Native Voices Endowment: A Lewis & Clark Expedition Bicentennial Legacy. These funds come from the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial Council, which received the revenues from the U.S. Mint's sale of the Lewis and Clark 2004 Commemorative Coin. Grants through this program are available to members of the Native American tribes that came in contact with the Lewis and Clark Expedition between 1803-1806. Grants are available for work on documentation and revitalization of the languages of these tribes see below for list of eligible tribes and languages. Applicants Principal Investigators must be enrolled tribal members or employees of tribal colleges. Scholarships for academic work in linguistics or a Native language, or for Master/Apprentice programs are also available for tribal members.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 65% for direct work, and 35% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 76
  • Transparency & Controls: 61
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 48
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 84.6%; rating input score 85
  • Program expense ratio: 86.3%; rating input score 86
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 19th 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: 47.2%; rating input score 47; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 2.4%; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.59; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.04; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 7.7%; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 9.7% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.9% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 17.6% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 84.6% of revenue deployed · 86.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $280K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $25K · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 25 of 27 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and grants
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2015 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 filed related-organization links
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 8 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 47/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 45/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 31/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 34/100.