Association of Social Work Boards

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
222414510
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Culpeper, VA, USA
Phone
5408296880
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Leadership Development

Reported finances

Revenue
$27,934,568
Expenses
$25,828,893
Assets
$55,797,872
Liabilities
$5,868,128

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

Leadership & pay

17 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KENYA ANDERSON (PRESIDENT)
  • BRIAN D PHILSON (PAST PRESIDENT)
  • STACEY HARDY-CHANDLER (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)

Highest reported compensation

  • STACEY HARDY-CHANDLER (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER): $429,232 total reported compensation
  • JENNIFER HENKEL (SR DIR OF MEMBER SERVICES): $263,390 total reported compensation
  • HEATHER FOLEY (SR DIR OF FIN & OPS): $260,563 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Provide support and services to the social work regulatory community to advance safe, competent, and ethical practices to strengthen public protection.

What it reported doing in 2025

Develop and administer standardized competence assessments to social workers seeking licensure. These assessments ensure that only social workers who meet competence standards are licensed. These assessments are required by all u.s. States, most canadian provinces and some u.s. Territories.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 95% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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 total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 65
  • Transparency & Controls: 73
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 53
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 70.9%; rating input score 71
  • Program expense ratio: 78.4%; rating input score 78
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 86.7%; rating input score 87; 2nd 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: Pass
    • 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: 9 of 9 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: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 7.5%; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.16; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.11; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.9%; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6.8% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.9% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.1% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 70.9% of revenue deployed · 78.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $20.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $429K · 17 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $5.4M reported
  • Consistency: 34 of 35 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 7 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.
  • 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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 52/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 54/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 43/100.