NC For the People Action (Formerly NC Voters for Clean Elections)
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 562129334
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2023–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2022, Form 990-EZ 2024
- Location
- Raleigh, NC, USA
- Phone
- 9193718683
- Rating
- 83
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Alliance/Advocacy
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $27,065
- Expenses
- $54,394
- Assets
- $138,072
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
6 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Melissa Price Kromm (Executive Director)
People named in this filing
- Logan Smith (Chair, Board of Directors)
- Carolyn Smith (Vice Chair, Board of Directors)
- Cheryl Carter (Member, Board of Directors)
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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To improve the election process by making the act of voting more accessible to citizens, to lessen the influence of money in politics and to generally make elected officials more responsive to the citizens of North Carolina.
What it reported doing in 2024
North Carolina For The People Action has played a central role in strengthening democratic institutions by coordinating communication and advocacy strategies across the state. We developed press strategies that drew attention to efforts undermining checks and balances, voting rights, and other core democratic safeguards. Through our coalition, we have brought together organizations and leaders to respond to threats against judicial independence, the right to peaceful assembly, fair elections, and campaign finance transparency. Specifically, we worked with our coalition partners on 1 constitutional amendment bill, 26 voting rights bills, 2 protect dissent bills, 4 structural democracy bills, 5 money in politics and good government bills, 3 tech and democracy bills, and 7 judicial integrity bills. Our communication to the public was through emails, Facebook posts, X posts, opinion articles in traditional media, and information disseminated to traditional news media. We invested in researching the more effective pro-democracy messaging and significantly upgraded our organizational communications. This included launching a new website, expanding to new social media platforms, and creating tailored messaging guides to better support and align our partners. Our approach combined advocacy to mitigate challenges with strategic communications efforts that informed the public and elevated democratic values. Even when challenges could not fully be stopped, we worked to ensure they were understood in the broader context of protecting democratic governance, helping to build long-term narrative change that supports a more resilient democracy.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- 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. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 83
- Transparency & Controls: 100
- Sustainability: 39
- Growth: 0
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 55.1%; rating input score 55
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -101%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.54; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -100% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -105.7% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -32.4% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 55.1% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $30K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed
- Consistency: 9 of 9 current checks pass
- Schedules: 2 filed schedules
- Filing history: 2 filing years from 2023 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
- Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
- 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.
- Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 55/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 8/100.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.