Election Administration Resource Center

What it reported doing in 2025

Earc dba ranked choice voting resource center (rcvrc) is the nation's only organization dedicated solely to promoting and supporting the administration of ranked choice voting (rcv). Because election offices are often understaffed and underfunded, we provide our educational services and tools for free or at a nominal fee based on state and local policies. (continued on schedule o)rcv was used in 17 cities and counties across nine states to elect local officials in 2025. Rcvrc staff supported election staff in many of these jurisdictions, providing expert advice on implementing ordinances and regulations, presentations, consultations, training staff on rcv and rctab, and advising on rcv implementation best practices. We partnered with redondo beach, ca, and charlottesville, va, to support their rcv implementation for the march 2025 and june 2025 elections, respectively. We advised each city's staff on many aspects of their rcv implementation, including logic and accuracy testing, audit and recount processes, results displays, voter education, and rctab.* states impacted (24): Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, & Wisconsin* cities impacted (5): arden (de), charlottesville (va), redondo beach (ca), st. Louis park (mn), st. Paul (mn) resources released in 2025:* new tools: prcv and single-winner rcv hand count toolkits and rcv blueprint. The hand count toolkits are designed to help election officials prepare for rcv implementation by providing a detailed hand count procedure for training and by helping them design recount and/or audit protocols for rcv. Rcv blueprint is an election administrator's guide to help build a comprehensive implementation plan based on a jurisdiction's existing infrastructure.* report updates: rcv maps. This is the rcvrc's primary research project, comprising 51 individual reports. This project is a state-by-state analysis of the rcv capability of voting equipment in each state and dc.* we also maintained our existing rcv implementation tracking tool, rcv election in a box tool, and rcv fact sheets. These resources provide valuable transparency about how rcv implementations work in practice and point election officials towards tools and resources they can use when implementing rcv.* our podcast, rcv clips, continues to cover rcv election administration topics ranging from drafting legislation to election certification to best practices learned from running rcv elections. Rcv clips has had 12,900 podcast downloads over 8 years. We release 9 episodes annually using a seasonal format, showcasing guests located across the country, from Alaska to Washington, dc.all of the resources referenced above are available on the organization's website: www.rcvresources.org.

Financial Efficiency

• Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
• Program expense ratio: 78.1%; rating input score 78
• Fundraising efficiency: $12.23 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

• Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
• Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
  • Compensation committee: Missing
  • Independent consultant: Missing
  • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
  • Written employment contract: Missing
  • Compensation survey or study: Missing
  • Board or committee approval: Missing
• 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
• Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
  • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
  • Whistleblower policy: Pass
  • Document-retention policy: Pass
  • CEO compensation review process: Fail
  • 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: -34.4%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
• Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.29; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
• Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
• Officer compensation ratio: 36.1%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

• Program expense growth: 17.8% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
• Revenue growth: -2.2% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
• Asset growth: 13.4% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings