Enneagram Prison Project

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
455340135
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2014
Location
Los Gatos, CA, USA
Phone
4086000074
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Rehabilitation Services for Offenders

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,298,287
Expenses
$1,333,126
Assets
$552,275
Liabilities
$401,394

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SUSAN OLESEK (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • FREDRIC OLESEK (Executive Dir.): $97,295 total reported compensation
  • SUSAN OLESEK (President): $84,655 total reported compensation
  • ALEXANDER SENEGAL (Director): $77,251 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Epp is a non-profit dedicated to working with the incarcerated to increase self-awareness, self-regulation, and self-compassion. Epp uses the enneagram, as well as a compassionate understanding of human development, trauma, addiction, and aces to inspire transformation.

What it reported doing in 2024

Virtually all of EPPs expenses were incurred in support of delivering EPPs primary program to the incarcerated. EPP successfully delivered its 24 hour in-classroom course in facilities in California, Kentucky, Washington, Minnesota, South Carolina, and Illinois. In addition, through independent, local affiliated organizations, EPP delivered programming in Belgium, France, the UK, and Canada. EPP also continued to actively train EPP Guides. EPP graduates now total over 2,400 individuals worldwide.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 78
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 58
  • Sustainability: 22
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 85.3%; rating input score 85
  • Program expense ratio: 82.8%; rating input score 83
  • Fundraising efficiency: $8.2 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 16th 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: 60%; rating input score 60; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 56
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -2.7%; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.41; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.73; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 19.4%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 18.8% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 19.1% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 23.6% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 85.3% of revenue deployed · 82.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 5 board members independent · 5 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $97K · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 29 of 30 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2015 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 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.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 32/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 29/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 19/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 10/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 15/100.