Council for a Livable World
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 520746112
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2014–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Washington, DC, USA
- Phone
- 2025434100
- Rating
- 72
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Standard
- Sector
- Arms Control, Peace
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $327,941
- Expenses
- $343,363
- Assets
- $141,690
- Liabilities
- $54,307
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
18 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- John Tierney (Executive Director)
Highest reported compensation
- John Tierney (Executive Director): $69,531 total reported compensation
- Cain Farmer (Controller): $5,350 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Nonprofit, nonpartisan advocacy organization that is dedicated to reducing the danger of nuclear weapons and increasing national security while helping elect congressional candidates who support such policies.
What it reported doing in 2024
Clws primary service accomplishments focus on the reduction and eventual elimination of nuclear weapons and weaponsgrade materials, a reduction in the risks of war, and advocacy for sensible military spending policies. It acts through its support for federal candidates to elective office that share its goals, and through dissemination of its research and analysis on related issues. Together with the pentagon budget campaign and its other participants, clw works to educate policymakers and the public about the u.s. Defense budget, including nuclear and nonproliferation items. Through oversight and legislative lobbying clw also works to highlight and eliminate pentagon fraud, waste and abuse in spending as well as influence smart defense spending decisions that might increase u.s. National security without compromising u.s. National economic security.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 92% 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 - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 60
- Transparency & Controls: 93
- Accountability: 86
- Sustainability: 24
- Growth: 40
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 64.8%; rating input score 65
- Program expense ratio: 61.8%; rating input score 62
- Fundraising efficiency: $7.57 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- 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: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
- 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: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -4.7%; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.41; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.38; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 21.8%; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 4% per year; rating input score 100; 49th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -3.1% per year; rating input score 0; 14th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -2.6% per year; rating input score 0; 16th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 64.8% of revenue deployed · 61.8% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 16 of 16 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $212K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $70K · 18 people listed
- Consistency: 21 of 22 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
- Filing history: 10 filing years from 2014 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
- 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: Fundraising efficiency scored 32/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 30/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 21/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 13/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 17/100.