Aspergers Network Support for Well-being Education and Research
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 800120494
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2018–2018
- Forms available
- Form 990 2018
- Location
- Plymouth, MN, USA
- Rating
- 60
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Specifically Named Diseases
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $5,829
- Expenses
- $7,093
- Assets
- $3,833
- Liabilities
- $1
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2018. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
7 people listed
People named in this filing
- THERESA NAMIE (Director)
- JAMES NAMIE (Treasurer)
- DEBORAH THORBURN (Secretary)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2018. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Promotion of awareness of aspergers syndrome and related treatment
What it reported doing in 2018
Answer has been assiting idivudals with asperger's syndrome
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 61% of its reported program spending out as grants.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 77
- Transparency & Controls: 90
- Accountability: 0
- Sustainability: 35
- Growth: NotEnoughData
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 84%; rating input score 84
- Program expense ratio: 69.1%; rating input score 69
- Fundraising efficiency: $15.63 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 0 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 0
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -21.7%; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.54; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: Limited
- Asset growth: Limited
Details
- Where the money goes: 84% of revenue deployed · 69.1% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 0 of 7 board members independent · 0 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $5K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
- Consistency: 17 of 17 current checks pass
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- 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.
Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.
- High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
- High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 6 not reported.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 38/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 18/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 42/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.