Civ Lab Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 822856371
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2019–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2018
- Location
- New York, NY, USA
- Rating
- 74
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Community Service Clubs
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $207,376
- Expenses
- $807,073
- Assets
- $1,493,057
- Liabilities
- $4,484
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
5 people listed
Highest reported compensation
- Simon Sylvester-Chaudhuri (Member,Exec Dir): $205,933 total reported compensation
- Allison Lucas (Dir. of Operations): $115,933 total reported compensation
- Vijayta Rao Narang (Exec. & India Advi): $105,933 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
CIV: LAB connects local actors with the resources and funding required to launch bold responses to the most pressing challenges facing their communities. Civ Lab aims to enhance community resilience and security by expanding the workforce, educating future leaders, and accelerating the development and adoption of innovative technologies. We support local organizations and actors in collaborating to leverage their resources and improve and strengthen their communities.
What it reported doing in 2025
Community Resilience Labs is designed to close the widening gap between escalating climate, health, and housing risks and communities' ability to prepare for and recover from them. The model works through three interconnected components: a Community Resilience Fund, Community Resilience Studios, and a National Collaboration network that connects grantee cohorts across cities like NYC, Michigan, and Los Angeles to share learnings and scale what works. By taking a "middle-out" approach that links place-based innovators with private, philanthropic, and government institutions, Community Resilience Labs aims to build stronger local ecosystems, drive economic development, and advance a more equitable, coordinated national resilience movement.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 71% 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. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 82
- Transparency & Controls: 74
- Accountability: 62
- Sustainability: 23
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 79.9%; rating input score 80
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 66.7%; rating input score 67; 21st percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 5 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 56
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -289.2%; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.85; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 53%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 33.7% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 25% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 37.2% per year; rating input score 100; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 79.9% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 2 of 3 board members independent · 5 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $645K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $206K · 5 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 24 of 24 current checks pass
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
- Filing history: 7 filing years from 2019 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 0/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 57/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 3/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 46/100.