Nafeo

Legal name: National Ass for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
237439804
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2022
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2022
Location
Washington, D.C., USA
Phone
(202) 552-3300
Rating
63
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$31,414,820
Expenses
$336,309
Assets
$30,129,917
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2022. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LEZLI BASKERVILLE (PRESIDENT CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • LEZLI BASKERVILLE (PRESIDENT CEO): $70,000 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2022. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To articulate the need for a system of higher education where race, income, and previous educational levels are not the determinants of either the quantity or the quality of higher education…to increase the active participation of Blacks at every level of American higher education.

What it reported doing in 2022

During fiscal year 2023 nafeo supported its members through a number of projects designed to enhance their viability including initiativesto increase student retention, initiatives to prepare nafeo member institutions for accreditation reviews, the provision of technical assistance to strengthen member colleges and universities, and through public-private partnerships. Nafeo also entered into four new partnerships to support the members in building thier infrastructures wealth

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

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 program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 26
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 88
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0.8%; rating input score 1
  • Program expense ratio: 75.8%; rating input score 76
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 98.9%; rating input score 100; 100th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 89.59; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 20.8%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -13.7% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 29.9% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 26.3% per year; rating input score 100; 93rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 4 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 0.8% of revenue deployed · 75.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $255K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $70K · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 17 of 20 current checks pass · 3 findings to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2011 to 2022
  • 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 1/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Insurance column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 3/100.