Consortium for Elections & Political Process Strengthening

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
521943638
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2024089450
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Citizen Participation

Reported finances

Revenue
$93,113,093
Expenses
$93,113,093
Assets
$2,321,222
Liabilities
$2,321,222

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KIMBER SHEARER MAIER (EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • HALLAM FERGUSON (COO/ACTING CFO)
  • KIMBER SHEARER MAIER (EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT)

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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The consortium for elections and political process strengthening (cepps) is a 501(c)(3) organization and a legal joint venture of three equal partners: the international foundation for electoral systems (ifes), the international republican institute (iri), and the national democratic institute (ndi). Cepps was created in 1995 to address the unique challenge of providing democracy assistance under a global cooperative agreement to a variety of local democratic institutions without creating conflicts of interest or undermining the independence and identity of local beneficiaries. Cepps partners implement a diverse range of programs that assist political and electoral actors and institutions - election commissions, domestic election monitoring organizations, parliaments and their members, civil society organizations and political parties.

What it reported doing in 2024

National democratic institute for international affairs: the international republican institute, the national democratic institute for international affairs, and the international foundation for electoral systems all receive subgrants from the consortium for elections and political process strengthening. The organizations then use the grants to achieve the following objectives * building effective, independent political parties, election authorities, legislative bodies, and non-governmental organizations (NGO's) * enabling regular, free elections to occur at local and national levels, as validated by independent observation and monitoring* promoting full citizen understanding of and participation in the electoral and political process * fostering professionalism in the fields of electoral and political process

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 100% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 89
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 30
  • Sustainability: 26
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 77th 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; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 0%; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.02; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4.9% per year; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1% per year; rating input score 100; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 3 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $93.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 14 of 14 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 3 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.

  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 29/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 1/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 7/100.