Center for Cybersecurity Policy & Law

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
824117300
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2023444411
Rating
47
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,593,662
Expenses
$3,806,311
Assets
$2,059,840
Liabilities
$1,517,241

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

People named in this filing

  • David Hoffman (Chairman)
  • Sam Curry (Secretary)
  • Jen Ellis (Treasurer)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

The Center for Cybersecurity Policy and Law develops, advances and promotes best practices and educational opportunities among cybersecurity professionals. The Center provides a forum for thought leadership for the benefit of those in the industry, including members of civil society and government entities, in the area of cybersecurity and related technology policy. The Center seeks to leverage the experience of leaders in the field to ensure a robust marketplace for cybersecurity technologies that will encourage professionals, companies and groups of all sizes to take steps to improve their cybersecurity practices.

What it reported doing in 2024

The Center for Cybersecurity Policy and Law seeks to carry out its mission through the following activities: * Cybersecurity Coalition - Launched in February 2016, the Cybersecurity Coalition works with leaders to develop consensus-driven policy solutions that promote a vibrant cybersecurity ecosystem, support the development and adoption of innovations, and encourage organizations to take steps to improve their cybersecurity. * Better Identity Coalition - Launched in February 2018, the Better Identity Coalition is focused on developing and advancing consensus-driven, cross-sector policy solutions that promote the development and adoption of better solutions for identity verification and authentication. * Hardware-Centric Vulnerability Disclosure Practices Initiative - Launched in 2018, the Initiative brings together key stakeholders from across the technology sector to identify needs and circumstances of the hardware ecosystem, possible gaps in disclosure policy and practice, and options for future improvements. * Enterprise Data Center Transparency And Security Initiative - Launched in September 2019, the Intiative brought together a range of representatives from industry, civil society, and the government to discuss how advancements in secure network protocols impacts the ability of enterprises to have visibility into the traffic on their networks, alternative technical methods, and options for the future research and the development of standards.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 100% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

MIXED - 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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 93
  • Accountability: 72
  • Sustainability: 27
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 57
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -5.9%; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.54; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.74; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 11.6% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1.8% per year; rating input score 100; 19th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 6 board members independent · 4 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $3.1M reported
  • Consistency: 12 of 13 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 19/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 19/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 12/100.