Institute for Responsive Government Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
932827813
IRS 990 coverage
2023–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Chicago, IL, USA
Phone
7083748631
Rating
79
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Public, Society Benefit N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$17,990,000
Expenses
$14,302,915
Assets
$6,370,976
Liabilities
$832,408

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SAMUEL GIL OLIKER FRIEDLAND (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)
  • ASHISH SINHA (DEPUTY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)
  • TIANA EPPS-JOHNSON (PRESIDENT/DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • SAMUEL GIL OLIKER FRIEDLAND (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER): $224,472 total reported compensation
  • NEAL UBRIANI (CHIEF OF POLICY): $211,889 total reported compensation
  • ALEXANDER TISCHENKO (CHIEF COUNSEL SENIOR POLICY ADVISOR): $198,126 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The institute for responsive government, inc. Develops solutions that make government more efficient, accessible, and responsive to the needs of real human beings.

What it reported doing in 2024

A more responsive government grant program was a nonpartisan program offering direct, flexible support to local election offices in the seven states that have led the way in modernizing elections. Grant award amounts were based exclusively upon the 2022 citizen voting age population of the local election office jurisdiction, as measured by the u.s. Census bureau. Grant funds were used to cover expenditures for planning and operationalizing secure, efficient, and accessible election administration. Local election officials decided how to allocate grant funds among the particular nonpartisan election administration needs in their jurisdiction.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 79% 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. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 84
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 54
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 75.7%; rating input score 76
  • Program expense ratio: 95.2%; rating input score 95
  • Fundraising efficiency: $346.36 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 94.7%; rating input score 95; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 56
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: 20.5%; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.45; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.13; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 8%; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 196.8% per year; rating input score 100; 100th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 160% per year; rating input score 100; 100th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 104.4% per year; rating input score 100; 100th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 75.7% of revenue deployed · 95.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 5 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $13.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $224K · 9 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $776K reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 31 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2023 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 250 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 245 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.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 13/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 29/100.