Essential Partners Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
223432160
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Cambridge, MA, USA
Phone
6179231216
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Human Service Organizations

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,082,159
Expenses
$2,089,021
Assets
$4,089,526
Liabilities
$454,212

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JOHN SARROUF (CO-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • KATHRYN DUGDALE (CO-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • JOHN SARROUF (CO-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $197,090 total reported compensation
  • KATHRYN DUGDALE (CO-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $135,295 total reported compensation
  • MOLLY ZUKER (DIRECTOR): $43,274 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Founded in 1989, essential partners helps people build relationships across differences to address their communities' most pressing challenges. Virtually and in person, across the country, the organization partners with schools, civic groups, faith institutions, colleges, and organizations to support belonging and cultures of constructive engagement across differences.

What it reported doing in 2024

Founded in 1989 as the public conversations project, the organization offers training, consultation, coaching, and facilitation for people who lead conversations across everyday and existential differences in their institutions and communities. The organization partners with communities and organizations who wish to build constructive patterns of communication into their culture. Using the organization's approach, these communities and institutions experience improvements in trust, belonging, influence, relationships, and social change - including greater effectiveness and outcomes.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 70% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 56
  • Transparency & Controls: 75
  • Accountability: 94
  • Sustainability: 66
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 49%; rating input score 49
  • Program expense ratio: 70.9%; rating input score 71
  • Fundraising efficiency: $12.14 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 90%; rating input score 90; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 32.2%; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.96; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.11; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 18%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.7% per year; rating input score 100; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.7% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.8% per year; rating input score 100; 23rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 49% of revenue deployed · 70.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 10 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $197K · 13 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 30 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 49/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 44/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 14/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 57/100.