Civility Foundation of America

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
320579415
IRS 990 coverage
2021–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2020
Location
Toledo, IL, USA
Phone
2172323240
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$53,973
Expenses
$31,767
Assets
$1,763,065
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DAVID SHUPE (President)
  • DR ROBERT CONLIN (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • DAVID SHUPE (President)
  • JANICE KIDD (Director)
  • MARGARET DUEVEL (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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To be organized exclusively for social welfare purposes. The focus shall be related to promoting the common good and general welfare of the public by nurturing a civil society.

What it reported doing in 2025

. The foundation participated in the 4h community center auction in toledo, il by providing backyard habitat kits..the foundation sponsored the 2024 4h program in toledo, il. This is an annual program highlighting achievements of youth and young adults.. The foundation supported cumberland county farm bureau's 100th year anniversary by contributing to the publication of the commemorative edition of it's plat book. . The foundation created an essay award for high school students. Students must write and submit an essay on civility that meets the requirements set by the board each year. In 2024, we offered the essay award to 3 high schools and 6 awards were given. In 2025 the foundation is expanding the essay award to 4 high schools. . The board continues to meet regularly to discuss ideas on how to best structure programs and engage the community in the foundations mission. . The foundation continues to discuss ways to oversee and supervise its assets so as to best serve the foundation's mission.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 50
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 81
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 34.6%; rating input score 35
  • Program expense ratio: 92.3%; rating input score 92
  • 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: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • 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: 41.1%; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 55.5; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 40.6% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 15% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1.4% per year; rating input score 100; 45th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 34.6% of revenue deployed · 92.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $29K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 15 of 15 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2021 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 35/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 58/100.