International Institute for Conflict Prevention & Resolution Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
132885302
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
New York, NY, USA
Phone
2129496490
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,723,952
Expenses
$3,214,104
Assets
$4,028,761
Liabilities
$3,028,978

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

Leadership & pay

34 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SERENA LEE (PRESIDENT & CEO (START 04/24))

Highest reported compensation

  • SERENA LEE (PRESIDENT & CEO (START 04/24)): $240,375 total reported compensation
  • HELENA TAVARES ERICKSON (SR. VP OF THE CPR INSTITUTE): $231,513 total reported compensation
  • ELLEN WALDMAN (VP, ADVOCACY & EDUCATIONAL OUTREACH): $166,073 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Cprs mission is to harness the insights and experiences of its members to prevent and resolve business disputes.we do this by:(see schedule o)- convening a community of members to generate innovative and best practice resources to prevent and resolve disputes.- promoting a global culture of dispute prevention and resolution.- resolving conflicts through an array of dispute resolution services and a panel of distinguished neutrals.

What it reported doing in 2024

In fiscal year 2025, the cpr institute produced many programs, conferences, and resources to support corporations and law firms interested in resolving legal disputes beyond litigation. These included three adr skills trainings, three substantive regional meetings and numerous committee presentations on topics from dispute prevention, choosing arbitral institutions and ombuds to mediation and tariffs. The institute also promulgated an employment dispute resolution program template and model employment mediation and arbitration agreement, which may be adopted by companies wishing to use mediation and arbitration to resolve employment disputes. The institute also revised and released a new version of its mediation procedure for the use of companies and its drs subsidiary. The cpr institute presented eight international programs including two of its flagship international programs the 2nd annual africa arbitration day-New York conference and arbitration moot competition, which awarded three scholarships and included speakers and students from africa, and the 9th year of its international mediation competition in brazil, which included teams from 18 law schools from around the world. Seven scholarships were awarded to international teams as part of the brazil competition. Cpr institute international advisory boards met nine times, including in-person meetings in so paulo, london, and madrid, and continued to advance various initiatives geared toward the business and legal communities in europe, brazil, and canada. Cpr institute's y-adr steering committee made significant contributions to programming both domestically and internationally, presenting their own bespoke programming as well as collaborating on several programs of both the cpr institute and cpr dispute resolution. Cpr dispute resolution provided a number of trainings for its panel of arbitrators as well as to advocates. The cpr annual conference was held in miami addressing dispute prevention, ethics, mediation, and international arbitration. The fiscal year ended with cpr's annual in-person gala, where verizon and its general counsel were honored with the corporate leadership award for their efforts in implementing dispute resolution into their corporate culture.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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

STRONG - 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: 88
  • Transparency & Controls: 74
  • Accountability: 93
  • Sustainability: 19
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 87.2%; rating input score 87
  • Fundraising efficiency: $8.33 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • 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: 96.4%; rating input score 96; 26th 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: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -18%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.25; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.75; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 28.9%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1.8% per year; rating input score 100; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -0.2% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 15.4% per year; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 87.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 27 of 28 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.8M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $240K · 34 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $145K reported
  • Consistency: 35 of 35 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2013 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 32/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 8/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 45/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 6/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 12/100.