Center for Education in Law and Democracy

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
010632431
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2014
Forms available
Form 990 2014
Location
Denver, CO, USA
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Research Institutes and Public Policy Analysis

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$33,397
Expenses
$60,467
Assets
$105,624
Liabilities
$9,614

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KEN BUCKIUS (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • KEN BUCKIUS (PRESIDENT)
  • DAN BROTZMAN (DIRECTOR)
  • SUSAN LIDDLE (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 2014. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To promote citizenship through education

What it reported doing in 2014

We the people. A program in which upper elementary, middle school and high school students develop a comprehensive understanding of the constitution and bill of rights and an appreciation of the rights and responsibilities of citizens in constitutional democracy. Civility. In 2012-2013, celd is conducting a program sponsored by the american bar association public education committee and funded by the national endowment for the humanities entitled civility and free expression: a Colorado conversation. The program provides an opportunity for coloradans to deliberate important Colorado issues and explore alternative solutions to difficult and divisive problems through discussion among citizens with a wide range of viewpoints. The program is supported by the american bar association.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 79% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program 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

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 74
  • Transparency & Controls: 93
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 29
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 56.5%; rating input score 56
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: -81.1%; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.75; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.09; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -52.8% per year; rating input score 0; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -40.9% per year; rating input score 0; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -8.7% per year; rating input score 0; 22nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 56.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 5 filed program accomplishments · $34K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 19 of 20 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2010 to 2014
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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: Program expense ratio scored 56/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 19/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 35/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 23/100.