National Center for Science and Civic Engagement

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
831637300
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2022–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2021
Location
Saugerties, NY, USA
Phone
2022108137
Rating
84
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Educational Services and Schools - Other

Reported finances

Revenue
$96,456
Expenses
$51,275
Assets
$194,746
Liabilities
$72,892

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Eliza Jane Reilly (President)

People named in this filing

  • Eliza Jane Reilly (President)
  • Danielle Kraus Tarka (Tresurer)
  • Karen Kashmanian Oates (At Large Officer)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Public Science education and support of faculty, instructors, and student researchers to improve community well-being, health, and civic engagement with science related challenges. Primary audience is higher ed faculty, community-based researchers, and informal STEM educators.

What it reported doing in 2025

5 National professional development workshops in 2025, 3 webinars, publication of a Journal for science educators, material support (lab and equipment expenses) for community-based student and faculty research through grant support. One US based lab training workshop and equipment subsidy for Fellows. Dissemination of curricular innovation and best practices through 12 conference presentations, 3 faculty mentoring workshops, 5 websites, one national conference, social media. Participant community served is currently 3900 faculty, administrators, and informal science educators.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 72% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

STRONG - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of total spending goes to programs. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filed totals do not add up.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 71
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Sustainability: 73
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 53.9%; rating input score 54
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 46.8%; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.8; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.37; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 21% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.6% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.9% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 53.9% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $52K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 8 of 9 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2022 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 54/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part III program expenses within total did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 9/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.