Executive Council Charities

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
273923417
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Phoenix, AZ, USA
Phone
4804203270
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Fund Raising and Fund Distribution

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,754,482
Expenses
$2,729,341
Assets
$644,626
Liabilities
$77,862

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MATTHEW DAVIS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • MATTHEW DAVIS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $165,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To raise funds through signature events and an annual campaign, and then provide grants to programs and non-profit organizations focuses on helping youth in Arizona overcome obstacles and reach their full potential as productive, caring, responsible citizens.

What it reported doing in 2024

The annual support Arizona youth campaign raised over $1.7 million in fiscal year 2024-2025 which was distributed to over 48 non-profit organizations. Executive council charities, through their general grants program, helped youth in Arizona overcome obstacles to reaching their full potential by distributing funds to both non-profit and tribal organizations focused on serving youth. Executive council charities' volunteers took youth from the umom new day centers (family homeless shelter) holiday shopping in december.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 73% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 96% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and some related-organization disclosures are missing.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 83
  • Transparency & Controls: 56
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 31
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 85.2%; rating input score 85
  • Program expense ratio: 85.9%; rating input score 86
  • Fundraising efficiency: $20.61 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 80%; rating input score 80; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 85.9%; rating input score 86; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: No; rating input score 0

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 0.9%; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.24; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.12; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6%; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 8.8% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.5% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -1.3% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 85.2% of revenue deployed · 85.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $165K · 11 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 20 of 23 current checks pass · 3 findings to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 70 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 37/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 7/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • 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.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 47/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 55/100.