Cliquepoint Data Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
272186265
IRS 990 coverage
2024–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2023, Form 990-N 2022
Location
Cleveland, OH, USA
Phone
2162247236
Rating
36
Verdict
REVIEW
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Education N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$185,591
Expenses
$82,123
Assets
$1,119,560
Liabilities
$872,407

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • WILLIE DRAKE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • JERRITT THOMAS (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • KEITH BENFORD (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • WILLIE DRAKE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $46,390 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Organization is organized exclusively for charitable, religious , educational, and scientific purposes, including, for such purposes, the making of distributions to organizations that qualify as exempt organization under section 501 c (3) of the Internal Revenue Code, or the corresponding section of any future Federal Tax code. Particularly the Organization mission is to help train youth to use technology safely, responsibly and advocate for the ethical use of technology.

What it reported doing in 2025

The 55th street settlement house program is a national register of historic place building thats being historically rehabilitated in part by the nps history preservation fund

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 100% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

REVIEW - Most voting board members are independent and revenue comfortably covers expenses. 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: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 53
  • Accountability: 69
  • Sustainability: 71
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 2nd 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: 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 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 55.8%; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 13.63; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.78; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 56.5%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -200% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 42% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 72.4% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $185K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $46K · 4 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 11 of 14 current checks pass · 3 findings to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2024 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D land buildings reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D other liabilities reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 2/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 5/100.