International Network for Social Network Analysis Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
043335856
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2010
Location
Marietta, GA, USA
Phone
3042088001
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Professional Societies, Associations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$396,360
Expenses
$240,560
Assets
$653,559
Liabilities
$62,149

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Steve Borgatti (Past President)
  • Laura Koehly (President)
  • Kayla de la Haye (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Steve Borgatti (Past President)
  • Per Block (Board Member)
  • Johan Koskinen (Board Member)

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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The International Network for Social Network Analysis (INSNA) is the professional association for researchers interested in social network analysis.

What it reported doing in 2025

INSNA publishes a bulletin called "Connections," which contains original empirical, theoretical, and methodological articles, as well as critical reviews dealing with applications of social network analysis as the official journal of the INSNA. The emphasis of the publication is to reflect the ever-growing and continually expanding community of scholars using network analytic techniques. Connections also provides an outlet for sharing news and social network concepts, techniques, and new tools for research.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 68% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 89% 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 the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 56
  • Transparency & Controls: 75
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 71
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 50.2%; rating input score 50
  • Program expense ratio: 84.1%; rating input score 84
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • 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 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: 39.3%; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.72; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.1; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.6% per year; rating input score 100; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.4% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.3% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 50.2% of revenue deployed · 84.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $202K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 14 people listed
  • Consistency: 25 of 25 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes foreign activity and grants
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2012 to 2025
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 50/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 7 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 22/100.