Constitutional Accountability Center

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
522063854
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2022966889
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Public Interest Law

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,960,261
Expenses
$3,805,767
Assets
$10,644,119
Liabilities
$2,207,280

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

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ELIZABETH B WYDRA (PRESIDENT)
  • PRAVEEN FERNANDES (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • ELIZABETH B WYDRA (PRESIDENT): $421,595 total reported compensation
  • BRIANNE J GOROD (CHIEF COUNSEL): $275,384 total reported compensation
  • PRAVEEN FERNANDES (VICE PRESIDENT): $267,746 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The constitutional accountability center (cac) is dedicated to fulfilling the inherently progressive promise of the constitution's text, history, and values. The constitution is our national charter, amended over the generations to become more just, equitable, and inclusive. As a nonprofit law firm and think tank, we work in our courts, through our government, and with legal scholars to make real the rights and freedoms the constitution provides for all in america.

What it reported doing in 2025

Cac's program services include: cac's unique value proposition is: litigation, research that underpins the litigation and advances a progressive constitutional narrative, and communicating about the litigation and research. Appellate litigation: cac aims to secure victories in the supreme court and lower federal courts, devoting our resources to those areas in which we have the best chance of influencing judicial decisions and securing progressive results.research: cac's scholarship shows that across a broad range of key issues from campaign finance to voting rights to lgbtq equality the constitution's text and history command progressive results. We provide rigorous but accessible explanations of the progressive nature of the constitution's text and history, for use by judges, advocates, and thought leaders both now and in the future.communications: cac's communications are focused on showcasing our value, particularly within the legal community, and working to help shape policies and legal theory.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 95% 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: 69
  • Transparency & Controls: 79
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 43
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 73.2%; rating input score 73
  • Program expense ratio: 74.9%; rating input score 75
  • Fundraising efficiency: $8.05 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • 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: 90%; rating input score 90; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: 3.9%; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.8; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.21; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 46.6%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.6% per year; rating input score 100; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.4% per year; rating input score 100; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 14.9% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 73.2% of revenue deployed · 74.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 10 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $422K · 16 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 31 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2011 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 7 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: Fundraising efficiency scored 28/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 39/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 2/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 34/100.