English-Speaking Union of the United States

Legal name: English Speaking Union of the United States - National Headquarters

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
131623995
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
New York, NY, USA
Phone
2128181200
Rating
82
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$5,137,725
Expenses
$3,985,402
Assets
$29,924,533
Liabilities
$499,218

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

Leadership & pay

25 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KAREN KARPOWICH (PRESIDENT/EXEC. DIRECTOR/SECRETARY)

Highest reported compensation

  • ANTHONY DIFILIPPO (CONTROLLER): $107,283 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The English-Speaking Union (ESU) enriches the lives of students, teachers, English language learners, and members worldwide through educational and cultural programs.

What it reported doing in 2024

Scholarships - travel and learn abroad: educators and lifelong learners: study in the united kingdom for an unforgettable immersive experience! Live and learn on the famed campuses of oxford and edinburgh or discover shakespeare in the context that brought his works to life - exploring his hometown in stratford or performing on the stage of the globe theatre in london.secondary school exchange program: secondary school exchange is one of the esu's oldest education programs. Founded in 1928, thousands of british and american students have enjoyed esu fellowship and study abroad.luard morse scholarships: since 1969, the english-speaking union has provided luard morse scholarships to students attending historically black colleges and universities (hbcus) to study in the united kingdom.

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 75% for direct work, and 25% for grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 79
  • Transparency & Controls: 76
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 81
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 97.3%; rating input score 97
  • Program expense ratio: 69.1%; rating input score 69
  • Fundraising efficiency: $4.63 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.7%; rating input score 95; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 40.9%; rating input score 41; 14th 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: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • 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: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 22.4%; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 7.51; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.7%; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.3% per year; rating input score 100; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.7% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.5% per year; rating input score 100; 37th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 8 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 2 operating locations identified
  • Where the money goes: 97.3% of revenue deployed · 69.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 20 of 20 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $2.8M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $107K · 25 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $285K reported
  • Consistency: 41 of 42 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 9 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 71 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.

  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 41/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 15/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.