Epilepsy Alliance America Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 831218385
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2022–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2019
- Location
- Baton Rouge, LA, USA
- Phone
- 3479871610
- Rating
- 81
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Alliance/Advocacy Organizations
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,190,371
- Expenses
- $1,004,390
- Assets
- $559,361
- Liabilities
- $112,117
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
17 people listed
Highest reported compensation
- LISA GALLIPOLI (COO): $135,187 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Provide programs and services to improve the lives of people living with epilepsy
What it reported doing in 2024
Epilepsy Alliance America is a nation-wide network of community-based epilepsy organizations which provide direct services in fifteen states and Puerto Rico. Member organizations are dedicated to confronting the spectrum of challenges created by seizures.Epilepsy Alliance America provides tools and resources for people with epilepsy disseminated directly by Epilepsy Alliance America as well as through the network of our member organizations.Comprehensive prevention and education services are provided in multiple languages. They include on-demand training for school personnel regarding seizure recognition and response. In 2024, 218,000 people took the training in forty-five states. Epilepsy Alliance America also launched an on-demand training for anyone interested in learning seizure recognition and response in 2024.People with epilepsy received education and information through webinars, awareness activities, and online and social media platforms. Twenty-one scholarships for students with psychogenic non-epileptic seizures were provided. Epilepsy Alliance America manages the Seizure Action Plan Coalition which is comprised on eighty awareness partners.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 82% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 72% for direct work, and 28% for grants.
The verdict
STRONG - 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 total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 87
- Transparency & Controls: 79
- Accountability: 74
- Sustainability: 48
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 80.7%; rating input score 81
- Program expense ratio: 95.6%; rating input score 96
- Fundraising efficiency: $233.45 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 80%; rating input score 80; 0th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 98.2%; rating input score 98; 46th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
- Audit committee oversight: Fail
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 15.6%; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.56; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.2; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 13.5%; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 55% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 68.5% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 20.1% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 80.7% of revenue deployed · 95.6% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 18 of 16 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $960K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $135K · 17 people listed
- Consistency: 29 of 32 current checks pass · 3 findings to review
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes grants
- Filing history: 3 filing years from 2022 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 15 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 14 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 8 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 26/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Independent members within voting members did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 27/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 31/100.