Accountability Lab Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
454613016
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2012
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2025574963
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Service Organizations

Reported finances

Revenue
$10,110,329
Expenses
$5,984,644
Assets
$5,964,764
Liabilities
$824,243

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • BLAIR GLENCORSE (CO-CEO)
  • CHERI-LEIGH ERASMUS (CO-CEO)
  • JEAN SCRIMGEOUR (CO-CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • MEGAN L COLNAR (DIRECTOR-ACCOUNTABLE NOW): $175,136 total reported compensation
  • BLAIR GLENCORSE (CO-CEO): $150,959 total reported compensation
  • JOHN ROMANO (DIRECTOR-TAP NETWORK): $142,605 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The accountability lab's mission is to build a new generation of active citizens and responsible leaders around the world. It works towards this mission by supporting change-makers to develop and implement positive ideas for integrity in their communities.

What it reported doing in 2025

Civic strength partners (csp)civic strength partners (csp) - in 2025, accountability lab co-founded civic strength partners (civicstrengthpartners.org), a strategic matchmaking and transition-support initiative created in collaboration with development gateway: an irex venture and digital public. Csp was established in response to a mounting global funding crisis in which thousands of civil society organizations face leadership transitions, political pressures, and the risk of losing critical knowledge, tools, and community trust.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 78% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 94% 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 - 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 the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 58
  • Transparency & Controls: 72
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 59
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 43.9%; rating input score 44
  • Program expense ratio: 74%; rating input score 74
  • Fundraising efficiency: $95.49 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 16th 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: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Pass
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Pass
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Pass
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 97%; rating input score 97; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 76.9%; rating input score 77; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • 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: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 40.8%; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.14; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 13.6%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 22.7% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 25% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 27.3% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 43.9% of revenue deployed · 74% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 13 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $4.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $175K · 16 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $729K reported
  • Consistency: 35 of 36 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2015 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 7 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 44/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 4 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 29/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 14/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.