The Equal Rights Center

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
521297949
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2022343062
Rating
79
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Housing Development, Construction, Management

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,543,897
Expenses
$2,117,489
Assets
$1,753,996
Liabilities
$581,394

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ROBERT DINERSTEIN (BOARD PRESIDENT)
  • PETER EDELMAN (1ST VICE PRESIDENT)
  • ANNIE KATE SCOTT (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • ANNIE KATE SCOTT (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $172,907 total reported compensation
  • SARA SURFACE (DEPUTY DIRECTOR): $132,812 total reported compensation
  • BRIAN MCKENZIE (DIR. OF TRAINING AND COMPLIANCE): $111,959 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The erc is a civil rights organization that identifies and seeks to eliminate unlawful and unfair discrimination in housing, employment, and public accommodations in its home community of greater Washington, d.c. And nationwide.

What it reported doing in 2025

Throughout the course of 2025, the erc conducted a total of 780 civil rights tests, opened 145 intakes with local residents alleging unfair treatment in housing, filed 15 administrative complaints with local civil rights enforcement agencies which yielded over $120,000 in monetary relief, and submitted 28 reasonable accommodation and modification requests on behalf of people with disabilities. The erc also trained housing professionals and members of the community about fair housing and accessibility requirements, conducting 94 trainings for corporate clients that educated over 4,120 housing professionals. Erc filed five litigations centered on the issues of advertising bias, noncompliance with local tenant screening requirements, and discrimination against housing voucher holders. It entered into one settlement agreement to ensure fair treatment for renters with housing vouchers, past evictions and criminal records at multiple d.c. Properties. Finally, erc developed and distributed numerous mission related educational materials and participated in over 100 educational, community-oriented events throughout the course of the year.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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 the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 90
  • Transparency & Controls: 70
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 16
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 82.4%; rating input score 82
  • Fundraising efficiency: $28.68 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -37.2%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.83; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.33; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 19.7%; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -9.1% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -3.9% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 0.3% per year; rating input score 100; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 82.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $173K · 14 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 32 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • 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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 3/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 37/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 17/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 18/100.