Common Power Future

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
862168401
IRS 990 coverage
2021–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Seattle, WA, USA
Phone
2064865757
Rating
38
Verdict
REVIEW
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Voter Education, Registration

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,933,574
Expenses
$4,533,339
Assets
$758,104
Liabilities
$20,230

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CHARLES DOUGLAS III (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • CHARLES DOUGLAS III (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $168,415 total reported compensation
  • TERRY SCOTT (DIRECTOR): $161,435 total reported compensation
  • LARCY DOUGLAS (DIRECTOR): $147,433 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The mission of the organization is to educate, amplify, and mobilize a next generation of civic leaders through educational experiences, including travel for learning tours, educational workshops, and civic leadership training. Our focus on leadership development equips participants with the skills, knowledge, and values necessary to advocate for a just and inclusive democracy. By immersing individuals in diverse environments and engaging with communities across the country, we aim to foster a deep understanding of democratic principles, social justice, and inclusivity. Through these experiences, we empower individuals to become effective leaders and agents of positive change in their communities and beyond.

What it reported doing in 2024

In 2024, our educational programs achieved record growth, expanded impact, and strengthened leadership development across multiple initiatives. Our lecture series, workshops, and courses grew to 24 offerings, engaging over 4,000 registrants from diverse backgrounds.our learning tours expanded to 7 total tours, including 2 educator-focused tours and an educator symposium, bringing together 200+ participants, including 62 new educators. By the end of the year, our educator ambassador network reached 132, reflecting sustained growth and influence from 2022 through 2024.through our education to action grants, we distributed 13 grants to empower innovative projects translating learning into real-world impact. The scholars in motion program served 32 students cumulatively, launching a second chapter in selma, al with 7 new students, expanding hands-on learning opportunities in new communities.meanwhile, action academy reached unprecedented participation, receiving 200+ applications, the largest in program history. 24 alumni returned as leaders, guiding and managing day-to-day program operations. Students applied their learning in the field, with 37 traveling to participate in electoral work, while engaging peers from over 7 countries worldwide. Interest in door-to-door engagement during the fall election cycle and broader international civic participation continued to grow.this year also saw the launch of democracy lab, a peer-to-peer education space fostering collaboration, leadership, and shared civic responsibility. Additionally, we launched a new social media platform, achieving strong engagement and expanding our digital reach.across all initiatives, 2024 was a year of growth, connection, and impactpreparing students and educators to be informed, empowered, and active leaders in their communities and around the world.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 99% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The program-spending lines do not add up, so the filing cannot show reliably whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

REVIEW - Program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 36
  • Transparency & Controls: 49
  • Accountability: 14
  • Sustainability: 48
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 30.4%; rating input score 30
  • Program expense ratio: 32%; rating input score 32
  • Fundraising efficiency: $58.27 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 81.2%; rating input score 81; 0th 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: 10.9%; rating input score 11; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 8.1%; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.17; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 1.4%; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 33.2% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 32.9% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -35.7% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 30.4% of revenue deployed · 32% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 3 board members independent · 3 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $168K · 4 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 27 of 29 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2021 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 4 filed related-organization links
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 30/100.
  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 32/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 11/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 5/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 59/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.