National Alliance For Public Safety Gis Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
205376630
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2009
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
4436401059
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Disaster Preparedness and Relief Services

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,099,855
Expenses
$1,671,193
Assets
$831,851
Liabilities
$210,413

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Peter O'Rourke (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Peter O'Rourke (Executive Director): $284,135 total reported compensation
  • Tari Martin (Chief Geospatial Info. Officer): $147,594 total reported compensation
  • Kevin Kay (chief operating officer): $139,345 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To support the public safety and homeland security and homeland security communities in the advancement of data interoperability and information sharing, through geospatial technology, in support of local and national emergency preparedness.

What it reported doing in 2025

Gis planning / education & outreach: all of napsg's education & training programming focus on building the capacity (with skills, knowledge, and access) for emergency responders to utilize geospatial technology and data to enhance preparedness, response, recovery and mitigation. Napsg hosted live virtual training sessions that reached over 300 public safety practitioners. Worked with us department of homeland security and state/local public safety agencies to deploy a common operating platform for search and rescue during large scale disasters, trained fema staff on implementing geospatial tools and information into fema operations. Completed additional symbols utilizing napsg symbol methodology, such symbols are being used across the country by various agencies and companies, performed work on a national institue of standards and technology grant on indoor mapping and tracking and performed other projects/tasks in partnership with the us department of homeland security.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 100% 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 - Most voting board members are independent and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 53
  • Transparency & Controls: 66
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 43
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 53.9%; rating input score 54
  • Program expense ratio: 68%; rating input score 68
  • Fundraising efficiency: $0.04 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • 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; 63rd 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: 20.4%; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.5; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.25; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 34.2%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.4% per year; rating input score 100; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.4% per year; rating input score 100; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 9.7% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 53.9% of revenue deployed · 68% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $284K · 12 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $184K reported
  • Consistency: 26 of 27 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2013 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 54/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 1/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 16/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 5/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 30/100.