Cardus Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
202324150
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2008
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
9055288866
Rating
56
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community Improvement, Capacity Building N.E.C.
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,071,329
Expenses
$1,302,000
Assets
$1,122,061
Liabilities
$1,110,936

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MICHAEL VAN PELT (PRESIDENT)
  • LYNN SWANER (PRESIDENT, US, CARDUS)

Highest reported compensation

  • MICHAEL VAN PELT (PRESIDENT): $183,013 total reported compensation
  • LYNN SWANER (PRESIDENT, US, CARDUS): $163,200 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Cardus, inc. Is a think tank. We build intellectual capacity, social networks and policy alternatives to sustain a wide range of cultural entrepreneurs for the renewal of north american social architecture. Cardus, inc. Is inspired by a long tradition of christian social thought.

What it reported doing in 2025

Comment is one of the core publications of cardus, a think tank devoted to renewing north american social architecture, rooted in 2000 years of christian social thought. In our print and online essays and reviews we zoom in on the multiple components that make up this "social architecture": the institutions that serve as the scaffolding and skeleton of social life. It's our families and financial systems, politics and education, museums and labour unions, and much more.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 88% 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.

The verdict

MIXED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 88
  • Transparency & Controls: 44
  • Accountability: 10
  • Sustainability: 16
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 97.7%; rating input score 98
  • 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: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Grant itemization coverage: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -21.5%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.86; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.99; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 26.6%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 11.5% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9.8% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 13.6% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 97.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 12 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $183K · 15 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 19 of 19 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 6/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 39/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 4/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 10/100.