The James Madison Institute for Public Policy Studies Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
592811908
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Tallahassee, FL, USA
Phone
8503863131
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,611,765
Expenses
$3,321,650
Assets
$2,624,345
Liabilities
$665,621

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • J ROBERT MCCLURE III (PRESIDENT &)

Highest reported compensation

  • J ROBERT MCCLURE III (PRESIDENT &): $426,690 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 james madison institute is to inform the citizens of Florida about their government and to ensure the future of the state by advancing free-market ideas pertaining to the issues of public policy.

What it reported doing in 2024

Researchers produce independent, non-partisan reports to inform the citizens of Florida about ideas that are rooted in a belief in the u.s. Constitution and such timeless ideals as limited government, economic freedom, federalism, and individual liberty coupled with individual responsibility. These reports include one edition of the journal of the james madison institute, seven issues of policy briefs, two issues of the messenger newsletter, biweekly emails, and multiple, additional, incidental publications as needed. These publications are routinely distributed to institute members, legislators, policy makers, and media, as well as made available to the general public at events, on their website, or upon request.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 76% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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 - 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: 55
  • Transparency & Controls: 70
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 43
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 58.9%; rating input score 59
  • Program expense ratio: 63.8%; rating input score 64
  • Fundraising efficiency: $3.49 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 10; 10th 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; 63rd 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: 8%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.79; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.25; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 12.8%; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4.5% per year; rating input score 100; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.3% per year; rating input score 100; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2% per year; rating input score 100; 20th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 58.9% of revenue deployed · 63.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $2.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $427K · 11 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $104K reported
  • Consistency: 36 of 36 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 59/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 10/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 29/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 58/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 23/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 38/100.