Clery Center for Security on Campus

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
232485759
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Fort Washington, PA, USA
Phone
4845808754
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Victims' Services

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,425,457
Expenses
$1,304,451
Assets
$1,240,412
Liabilities
$381,118

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

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ROBERT ALIG (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR EFF 6-25)
  • JESSICA MERTZ (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR THRU 2-25)
  • ABIGAIL BOYER (INTERIM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR THRU 6-25)

Highest reported compensation

  • ROBERT ALIG (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR EFF 6-25): $88,493 total reported compensation
  • ABIGAIL BOYER (INTERIM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR THRU 6-25): $86,540 total reported compensation
  • JESSICA MERTZ (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR THRU 2-25): $25,559 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To work with college and university communities to create safer campuses.

What it reported doing in 2025

Clery center membership program - the clery center membershp program includes institutional and individual membership. Institutional membership is a team-based learning membership program that brings together colleges and universities to build cost-effective, customized, and sustainable approaches to campus safety and clery act compliance. Individual membership provides individuals with self-paced learning, resources, and access to technical assistance.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 77% 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 - 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: 50
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 42
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 51.3%; rating input score 51
  • Program expense ratio: 57.6%; rating input score 58
  • Fundraising efficiency: $5.42 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 18; 18th 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; 64th 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: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 8.5%; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.95; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.31; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 15.4%; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -4% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.8% per year; rating input score 100; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 11.7% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 51.3% of revenue deployed · 57.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $752K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $88K · 16 people listed
  • Consistency: 32 of 32 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2015 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 51/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 58/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 18/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 53/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 41/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 19/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 24/100.