National Association for Gifted Children

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
310686464
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2027854268
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,320,380
Expenses
$2,336,983
Assets
$2,117,002
Liabilities
$775,300

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

19 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LAURI KIRSCH (PAST PRESIDENT)
  • SHELAGH GALLAGHER (PRESIDENT)
  • CATHERINE LITTLE (PRESIDENT ELECT)
  • JOHN SEGOTA (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • JOHN SEGOTA (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $211,236 total reported compensation
  • ANDREW BASSETT (FORMER DIRECTOR OF FINANCE): $110,033 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Nagc empowers all who support children with advanced abilities in accessing equitable opportunities that develop their gifts and talents. We do this through advocacy, outreach, education, and research.

What it reported doing in 2024

Membership services: provides professional development that shapes education policy for high potential learners, builds the research base in the field of gifted studies and fosters effective dialogue between homes, school and the community. Nagc publishes "teaching for high potential and "gifted child quarterly", scholarly magazines, and "parenting for high potential", which enables the organization to provide practical tips for nurturing a child's unique gifts and talents, life in the high potential lane and other opportunities for professional and leadership development.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 73% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 99% 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. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 64
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 30
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 70.7%; rating input score 71
  • Program expense ratio: 70.4%; rating input score 70
  • Fundraising efficiency: $4.46 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -0.7%; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.91; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.37; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 13.7%; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -0.8% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.6% per year; rating input score 100; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -1.1% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 70.7% of revenue deployed · 70.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 17 of 17 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $1.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $211K · 19 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 32 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 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.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 15/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 30/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: CEO compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 34/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 21/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 29/100.