Consource Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
202932856
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2020–2020
Forms available
Form 990 2019, Form 990-EZ 2020
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2027871060
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Libraries

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$41,265
Expenses
$297,639
Assets
$33,962

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

People named in this filing

  • GENE SCHAERR (CHAIR)
  • RANDALL GUYNN (Member)
  • DR MAEVA MARCUS (MEMBER)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The Constitutional Sources Project (ConSource) connects hundreds of thousands of American citizens of all ages annually to our nation's constitutional history by creating a comprehensive, easily searchable, fully-indexed, and freely accessible digital library of historical sources related to the creation, ratification, and amendment of the United States Constitution. Our team not only curates important digital collections of historical materials, but also creates free research reports and educational resources including downloadable lesson plans to meet the specific needs of scholars and authors, legal practitioners and government officials, educators and students, journalists and the general public.

What it reported doing in 2020

Digital resources: maintaining and adding to consources comprehensive, easily searchable, fully-indexed, and freely accessible digital library of historical sources related to the creation, ratification, and amendment of the united states constitution. This includes portion of staff salary and independent contractors time spent to researching, acquiring and digitizing content for the consource online library.

Operating model

Revenue model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent revenue detail to tell how this nonprofit funds its work.
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

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and some filed totals do not add up.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 70
  • Transparency & Controls: 93
  • Sustainability: 11
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 18.8%; rating input score 19

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -621.3%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.11; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 4.4% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 18.2% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 18.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $56K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 6 of 7 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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: Program expense ratio scored 19/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part III transfer expenses within program total did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 4/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 8/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.