Center for Popular Democracy Action Fund Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
453860271
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2012
Location
Brooklyn, NY, USA
Phone
3479852220
Rating
79
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Education N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,771,306
Expenses
$3,146,331
Assets
$3,723,688
Liabilities
$1,518,355

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DAMAREO COOPER (CO-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • ANALILIA MEJIA (CO-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • DAMAREO COOPER (CO-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $38,285 total reported compensation
  • ANALILIA MEJIA (CO-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $34,798 total reported compensation
  • JENNIFER FREEDMAN (CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER): $13,084 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The center for popular democracy action (cpda) and its affiliates know that everyday people have the power to change the world. We upend business and politics as usual to forge a representative, multiracial government and society where we all thrive, no exceptions.

What it reported doing in 2024

Civic engagement: in 2024 cpda also designed a strategy for injecting housing into the political discourse and communicating with renters about what was at stake in the election and where candidates stood on issues that impacted renters specifically. These targeted interventions by pdia, its affiliates, and countless other partners and tenant-led organizations, directly led to the centering of the housing crisis in the president's state of the union address. Pdia collaborated with affiliates, providing support through monthly strategy calls, policy analysis, base-building integration, leadership development, and popular education training, while also planning national campaign opportunities to unify policy platforms and narrative strategies.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 74% for direct work, and 26% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 88
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 29
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 84.4%; rating input score 84
  • Fundraising efficiency: $10.15 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings

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: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 80%; rating input score 80; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: -13.5%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.18; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.41; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.7%; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1.9% per year; rating input score 100; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.1% per year; rating input score 100; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.5% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 84.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 10 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 6 filed program accomplishments · $2.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $38K · 12 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $183K reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 31 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2014 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 7 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 5 filed related-organization links
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 38/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 10/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 43/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 26/100.