National Alliance of State Drug Enforcement Agencies

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
742486020
IRS 990 coverage
2022–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2021
Location
Austin, TX, USA
Phone
5124242131
Rating
53
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Reported finances

Revenue
$366,869
Expenses
$224,578
Assets
$292,200
Liabilities
$28,229

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KEVIN HOBSON (President)
  • DON PAYTON (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • TODD JORDAN (Director): $36,674 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 provide a forum for state drug enforcement agency heads to exchange management information identification of drug problems nationwide and develop greater coordination with federal, state, and local drug law enforcement.

What it reported doing in 2025

Fall and spring conferences - the organizations primary program service consisted of hosting its spring and fall conferences. These conferences brought together state drug enforcement agency heads, directors, agents, and related law enforcement professionals for education, information sharing, professional development, and networking. Conference activities focused on current drug enforcement issues, emerging trends, management practices, interagency coordination, and collaboration among federal, state, and local law enforcement partners. Through these conferences, the organization supported continued professional education and strengthened communication and coordination among drug enforcement leaders nationwide.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 93% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 56
  • Transparency & Controls: 74
  • Accountability: 0
  • Sustainability: 60
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 51.2%; rating input score 51
  • Program expense ratio: 83.7%; rating input score 84
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 81.8%; rating input score 82; 1st 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; 8th 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: 38.8%; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.3; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.1; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 16.3%; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 16.8% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 19% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 40.2% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 51.2% of revenue deployed · 83.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 5 board members independent · 0 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $188K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $37K · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 20 of 21 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2022 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 51/100.
  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 6 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 48/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 22/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 22/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.