The Commonwealth Foundation for Public Policy Alternatives

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
232473845
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Harrisburg, PA, USA
Phone
7176711901
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Research Institutes and Public Policy Analysis

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$12,034,533
Expenses
$8,874,444
Assets
$11,045,525
Liabilities
$1,924,756

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

21 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • STEPHEN L BLOOM THRU 41625 (SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT)
  • ERIK M TELFORDTHRU 41625 (SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT)
  • ANDREW J LEWIS (PRESIDENT & CEO)
  • C ROGER CUSTERTHRU 41625 (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • ELIZABETH STELLE (VICE PRESIDENT OF POLICY)

Highest reported compensation

  • STEPHEN L BLOOM THRU 41625 (SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT): $261,282 total reported compensation
  • NATHAN A BENEFIELD (CHIEF POLICY OFFICER): $237,340 total reported compensation
  • ABBEY HASLAM (DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS): $143,515 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 commonwealth foundation transforms free-market ideas into public policies, empowering all pennsylvanians to thrive.

What it reported doing in 2024

Policy analysis: the commonwealth foundation conducts vigorous research to develop data-driven free-market policy solutions, in addition to offering analysis of existing policies and programs, disseminating these resources through our public affairs and government affairs programs.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 98% 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 - 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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 59
  • Transparency & Controls: 81
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 61
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 54.2%; rating input score 54
  • Program expense ratio: 72%; rating input score 72
  • Fundraising efficiency: $14.3 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 17th 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: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 80.9%; rating input score 81; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th 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: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 26.3%; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.24; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.17; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 17.4%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 12.4% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 13.5% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 19.2% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 54.2% of revenue deployed · 72% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $6.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $261K · 21 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 4 contractors listed · $1.2M reported
  • Consistency: 33 of 34 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 15 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 3 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.
  • 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: Mission deployment rate scored 54/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 48/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Audit committee oversight not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 44/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 6/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.