Alliance of Nonprofit Mailers Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
521349816
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2024625132
Rating
42
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$313,684
Expenses
$375,662
Assets
$591,450
Liabilities
$173,000

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Stephen Kearney (Former Executive Director)
  • Kathy Siviter (Executive Director)
  • James Asselmeyer (President)
  • Jerry Mathis (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Stephen Kearney (Former Executive Director): $162,600 total reported compensation
  • Kathy Siviter (Executive Director): $41,250 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Alliance of Nonprofit Mailers is a Coalition of Nonprofit Organizations that depend on the mail. It is an advocate for its members with the United States Congress, US Postal Service and Postal Regulatory Commission.

What it reported doing in 2025

The Alliance of Nonprofit Mailers (ANM) in 2025 advocated for a reduction in frequency of U.S. Postal Service nonprofit postage increases. ANM submitted comments in appropriate regulatory proceedings as well as advocating for the USPS to return to once annual postage price increases vs. the twice per year increases it had been implementing between 2021 and 2025 which had a significant detrimental impact on nonprofit organizations using the mail. The Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC) in December 2025 ordered that the U.S. Postal Service be limited to one price increase per fiscal year for its Market Dominant mail products, which includes nonprofit postage rates.

Operating model

Revenue model
Membership-supported. 94% of the money available for current operations came from membership dues.
Distribution model
No current program activity. The filing reports no program spending for the current year.

The verdict

MIXED - 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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Accountability: 74
  • Sustainability: 23
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -19.8%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.57; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.29; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 54.3%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -49.7% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -1.7% per year; rating input score 0; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.1% per year; rating input score 100; 44th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $163K · 11 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 21 of 21 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2012 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 12/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 53/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 3/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 13/100.