Supporters of Civil Society Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
412040138
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
St Louis, MO, USA
Phone
3147726587
Rating
59
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Public Foundations

Reported finances

Revenue
$218,158
Expenses
$189,628
Assets
$213,533
Liabilities
$232

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

Leadership & pay

21 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • THOMAS RHODENBAUGH (Treasurer): $4,160 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To offer emerging civic and community leaders participating in civic education programs the opportunity to meet with us & western european leaders and experts to discuss the role of community and citizen groups and business and civic organizations in fostering and supporting good governance, transparency, and accountability in open democratic societies.

What it reported doing in 2025

Supported the development of civil society leaders in Europe and Eurasia through grant support of programmatic costs for civil society seminars in Europe and Eurasia conducted by SCS program partner organization. Supported web-based educational programming and content development and distribution through a large social media network that connects program alumni. Also, provided programmatic costs and administrative oversight to a program designed for human rights defenders to safely meet, exchange knowledge and ideas, and look for ways to collaborate.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 81% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

MIXED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 75
  • Transparency & Controls: 41
  • Accountability: 71
  • Sustainability: 52
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 80.4%; rating input score 80
  • Program expense ratio: 92.5%; rating input score 93
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Limited
    • Requires narrative reports: Limited
    • Conducts field audits: Limited
    • May suspend future funding: Limited
    • Requires financial reports: Limited
    • Conducts site visits: Limited
    • Requires grant agreements: Limited
    • May require repayment: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 0%; rating input score 0; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 94.7%; rating input score 95; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 13.1%; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.13; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.2%; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -5.4% per year; rating input score 0; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -8% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -6.7% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 80.4% of revenue deployed · 92.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 18 of 19 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $175K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $4K · 21 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 20 of 21 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2013 to 2025
  • 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.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 44/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 33/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 50/100.