The Progressive Change Institute
Legal name: Progressive Change Institute
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 461193049
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2019–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Washington, DC, USA
- Phone
- 2026816401
- Rating
- 76
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Government and Public Administration
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $406,589
- Expenses
- $883,763
- Assets
- $440,834
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
5 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Stephanie Taylor (President)
Highest reported compensation
- Adam Green (Treasurer): $214,994 total reported compensation
- Stephanie Taylor (President): $213,365 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 Progressive Change Institute works to inject bold progressive ideas into the political mainstream and focuses on bottom-up democracy.
What it reported doing in 2024
Engaged in nonpartisan public education efforts highlighting the need for fair taxation policies and the importance of strengthening Social Security, including events in Arizona and Nevada. Conducted research and public education identifying corporate pricing practices and market consolidation as contributors to inflation, including continued focus on junk fees. Supported public awareness of antitrust enforcement and related executive actions as part of advancing a fair and competitive economy. Collaborated with partner organizations to develop strategies related to leadership transitions and long-term progressive infrastructure. Developed and tested messaging, including polling, to improve public understanding of the role and value of government services and public sector workers.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 77% for direct work, and 23% for grants.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 92
- Transparency & Controls: 74
- Accountability: 63
- Sustainability: 21
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 86.6%; rating input score 87
- Fundraising efficiency: $33.18 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 13th 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: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 95.4%; rating input score 95; 55th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 60%; rating input score 60; 17th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- 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: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -117.4%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.5; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 3.3%; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 2.7% per year; rating input score 100; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -14.7% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 4% per year; rating input score 100; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 8 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 86.6% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 3 of 5 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $766K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $215K · 5 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 23 of 24 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 5 filing years from 2019 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 4 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.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 2/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 24/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 34/100.