Congressional Award Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
521168592
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2007
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2022260130
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Youth Development Programs

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,506,664
Expenses
$1,432,415
Assets
$985,753
Liabilities
$143,969

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

Leadership & pay

84 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • ERICA W HEYSE (NATIONAL DIRECTOR): $205,097 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 primary goal of the congressional award foundation is to promote and recognize service, initiative, and achievement in america's youth. We strive to help young people realize their full potential as productive, responsible and caring citizens. Young people register for the congressional award program and set personally challenging goals in four program areas voluntary public service, personal development, physical fitness and expedition/exploration. These diverse areas encourage young people to discover new talents, learn about the world around them and to take positive action in their communities.

What it reported doing in 2024

Congressional award program administration: congressional awards are earned by youth between the ages of 14 and 24 years of age. It represents more than 4,000 hours of volunteer time through self-improvement education and physical fitness. Salaries allocated to the program are for guiding, administering and supporting more than 50,000 youths, their advisors, teachers and mentors.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 69% 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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 60
  • Transparency & Controls: 74
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 40
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 64.5%; rating input score 65
  • Program expense ratio: 67.9%; rating input score 68
  • Fundraising efficiency: $3.92 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • 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: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 4.9%; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.69; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.15; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 14.3%; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 9% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.9% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 11% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 64.5% of revenue deployed · 67.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 43 of 43 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $972K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $205K · 84 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 34 of 34 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2013 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 13/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 50/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 31/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 24/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 37/100.