Students For Sensible Drug Policy Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
522296291
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2022
Forms available
Form 990 2022
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2023935280
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Addictive Disorders N.E.C.

Reported finances

Revenue
$476,958
Expenses
$491,621
Assets
$42,724
Liabilities
$3,644

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2022. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

1 person listed

People named in this filing

  • Jason Ortiz (Director)

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

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2022. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

SSDP Foundation mobilizes and empowers young people to push forsensible policies to achieve a safer and more just future whilefighting back against counterproductive Drug War policies, particularly those that directly harm students and youth.

What it reported doing in 2022

SSDP trained thousands of students in grassroots skills such asorganizing, leadership, public speaking, community education, fundraising, and advocacy. We educated students about drug policiesincluding those related to changing marijuana and other drugprohibition policies to be more sensible and less punitive, promotingharm reduction/overdose prevention practices, providing evidence-baseddrug education, and teaching students about international drug policy, racial justice, civil rights, human rights and their constitutionalrights. The national staff organized an international conference onsimilar topics for more than 400 students.See Schedule O for continuation.

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 99% 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 most voting board members are independent. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 75
  • Transparency & Controls: 46
  • Accountability: 94
  • Sustainability: 29
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 74.7%; rating input score 75
  • Program expense ratio: 72.5%; rating input score 73
  • Fundraising efficiency: $90.37 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Fail
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 0%; rating input score 0; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 86
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -3.1%; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.09; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.09; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0.7% per year; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.1% per year; rating input score 100; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -9.7% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 74.7% of revenue deployed · 72.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 16 of 16 board members independent · 6 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $356K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 1 people listed
  • Consistency: 29 of 30 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes foreign activity
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2011 to 2022
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 8 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 34/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 5/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 30/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.