Civics Learning Project
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 930847940
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Portland, OR, USA
- Phone
- 5032244424
- Rating
- 74
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Legal Services
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,320,314
- Expenses
- $1,235,876
- Assets
- $1,122,867
- Liabilities
- $108,896
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
37 people listed
Highest reported compensation
- SAMUEL KANG (Executive Dir.): $146,546 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Civics learning project is an Oregon nonprofit corporation whose purpose is to promote civics education and equip students with the knowledge, essential skills, and motivation to become active participants in their communities and in our democratic society, principally through work with teachers and schools throughout the state of Oregon.
What it reported doing in 2024
Outreach & communications critical to sustaining and expanding the organizations impact are proactive outreach and communications to increase awareness of and engagement with its programs among teachers across Oregon, as well as collaboration with other civics and social studies education entities to continuously develop and evolve those programs to ensure relevancy. Communications elements include a monthly newsletter and consistent schedule of social media posts to convey information about programs and upcoming events, as well as maintenance of a database of several thousand email contacts. Three regional program managers have been added to-date, in eugene, medford, and bend, as part of the Oregon civics reach initiative. Their focus is on developing relationships with local educators and community partners, delivering the full range of the organization's programs and reaching schools in an approximately two-hour radius, including local courthouse experience tours, expanding the high school mock trial and we the people competitions statewide, increasing participation by all grades in classroom versions of our experiential civics programs, and providing teachers with support including recruitment of local community volunteers. They have also established educator advisory councils in each region to ensure alignment with local needs. The staff reaches additional audiences by presenting regularly at conferences, participating in workgroups, and co-developing new content with other organizations including the Oregon and national councils for the social studies, and the Oregon department of education, while also maintaining long-term partnerships at a national level with icivics, the center for civic education, the national high school mock trial association, and street law, inc.
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
SUPPORTED - 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: 48
- Transparency & Controls: 92
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 46
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 49.8%; rating input score 50
- Program expense ratio: 52.9%; rating input score 53
- Fundraising efficiency: $5.95 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
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: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Other executive compensation review process: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 6.4%; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.91; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.1; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 11.9%; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 4.5% per year; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 6.8% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 8.8% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 49.8% of revenue deployed · 52.9% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 36 of 36 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $654K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $147K · 37 people listed
- Consistency: 28 of 28 current checks pass
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors
- Filing history: 15 filing years from 2009 to 2024
- 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.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 50/100.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 53/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 22/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 54/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 40/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 31/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 43/100.