C-pace Alliance Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
882492060
IRS 990 coverage
2022–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Austin, TX, USA
Phone
5122569769
Rating
44
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Chambers of Commerce & Business Leagues

Reported finances

Revenue
$919,126
Expenses
$995,456
Assets
$741,022
Liabilities
$645,500

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

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LEAH WIGGS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • CLIFTON KELLOGG (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • LEAH WIGGS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $159,852 total reported compensation
  • NICHOLAS ZUBA (DEPUTY DIRECTOR): $120,017 total reported compensation
  • CLIFTON KELLOGG (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $84,902 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

See Schedule O

What it reported doing in 2025

Since its inception in 2018 CPA has published nine policy white papers on topics related to the C-PACE program design and operations. CPA organized an annual in-person industry meeting in July 2022 to discuss market developments and future initiatives. CPA organized or spoke on three to five webinars targeted to the industry and open interested members of the public annually since 2020 including industry roundup conference calls in which program administrators from every state describe their achievements of the prior year and objectives for the coming year. In the second half of 2022 three informational webinars were held for our members each with 60-80 participants. CPA publishes a map showing which states have active C-PACE programs.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 100% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
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

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 43
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 16
  • Sustainability: 18
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 49.5%; rating input score 50
  • Program expense ratio: 45.7%; rating input score 46
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Limited
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -8.3%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.74; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.87; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 36.6%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 120% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.9% per year; rating input score 100; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 15.4% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 49.5% of revenue deployed · 45.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 4 board members independent · 3 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $160K · 3 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 39 of 39 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2022 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 50/100.
  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 46/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 15/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 34/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 5/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 5/100.