Int'l Center for Innovations in Civic Participation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
522316790
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2017
Forms available
Form 990 2017
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2027750290
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Citizen Participation

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$11,760
Expenses
$24,235
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SUSAN STROUD (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • SUSAN STROUD (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $1,200 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Facilitates the generation of opportunities for young people to change their communities for the better and build essential skills for future success through civic engagement. We work with individuals, organizations, and groups around the globe to support the development of innovative approaches to two civic participation strategies: national youth service and service-learning.

What it reported doing in 2017

Innovations in civic participation (icp) works to strengthen and develop policies and programs that focus on applying service as a solution to a wide range of social issues. Icp focuses its efforts on broadening and deepening support for national and community services in the united states by developing pathways and transition strategies for americorps members after service, identifying and supporting innovative state programming, & promoting discussions among policymakers, funders, and practitioners. Internationally, icp is developing regional capacity in latin america and south africa, awarding small grants to support innovative youth service policy development, building strategic partnerships to assist in the design and implementation of innovative service programs and policies, and collecting and distributing information through forums, publications, websites, & e-newsletters. Icp has worked with numerous universities, national and local governments, and multilateral organizations in over twenty countries on six continents.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 100% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 77
  • Transparency & Controls: 81
  • Accountability: 68
  • Sustainability: 10
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 61.9%; rating input score 62
  • Fundraising efficiency: $0 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 80%; rating input score 80; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -106.1%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5%; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -76.4% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -42.1% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -44.7% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 61.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 5 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $15K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $1K · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 18 of 19 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2011 to 2017
  • 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: Fundraising efficiency scored 3/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 16/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 2/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 20/100.