The Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship & Political Philosophy
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 953443202
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2011–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
- Location
- Claremont, CA, USA
- Phone
- 9099812200
- Rating
- 69
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $13,212,080
- Expenses
- $10,196,092
- Assets
- $18,224,884
- Liabilities
- $1,378,138
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
29 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- RYAN P WILLIAMS (PRESIDENT AND DIRECTOR)
- ARTHUR MILIKH (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- MICHAEL ANTON (SENIOR FELLOW): $281,857 total reported compensation
- RYAN P WILLIAMS (PRESIDENT AND DIRECTOR): $242,848 total reported compensation
- DR CHARLES KESLER (DIRECTOR, CRB EDITOR): $232,400 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 mission of the claremont institute is to restore the principles of the american founding to their rightful, preeminent authority in our national life.
What it reported doing in 2024
The henry salvatori program for the american founding and salvatori prize in the american founding are endowed by the late henry salvatori. The activities of the the henry salvatori program for the american founding include the work of our salvatori research fellow in the american founding and our publius fellowship for recent college graduates. The salvatori prize is given annually to a man or woman who has distinguished himself or herself by an understanding of, and actions taken to preserve and foster, the principles upon which the united states was built.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 92% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 98% 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.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 58
- Transparency & Controls: 70
- Accountability: 81
- Sustainability: 66
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 56.6%; rating input score 57
- Program expense ratio: 71.3%; rating input score 71
- Fundraising efficiency: $5.73 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 20th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
- Compensation committee: Pass
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
- Written employment contract: Pass
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Scored; rating input score 0
- Grant itemization coverage: 92.5%; rating input score 93; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 76.2%; rating input score 76; 14th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
- 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: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 22.8%; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.79; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.08; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 23.9%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 9.1% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 8.3% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 9.8% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 56.6% of revenue deployed · 71.3% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 16 of 21 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 8 filed program accomplishments · $7.3M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $282K · 29 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 4 contractors listed · $802K reported
- Consistency: 37 of 38 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 11 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 13 filing years from 2011 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 16 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
- 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 57/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 23/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 58/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 2/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.