National Association for Public Defense Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
464056944
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2015
Location
Denver, CO, USA
Phone
3039213736
Rating
62
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Public, Society Benefit N.E.C.

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,757,544
Expenses
$1,750,040
Assets
$672,860
Liabilities
$122,948

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

Leadership & pay

23 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LORI JAMES-TOWNES (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • CYDNI SANCHEZ (PAST PRESIDENT)
  • ELIZABETH MILLER (PRESIDENT)
  • ANTHONY BENNEDETTI (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • LORI JAMES-TOWNES (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $167,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

National association for public defense (napd) works to secure justice for poor people, people of color, and other disenfranchised groups in this country, who are represented by public defenders by providing training and assistance to public defender leaders and staff and by

What it reported doing in 2024

Educate, train and support public defender leaders, public defender staff, and related disciplines engaged in the work of indigent defense to enable those persons to provide the highest quality legal representation possible.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 70% 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 - 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 few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 52
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 74
  • Sustainability: 31
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 58.1%; rating input score 58
  • Program expense ratio: 59%; rating input score 59
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

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: Limited
  • 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: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: 0.4%; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.38; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.18; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 9.5%; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 18.3% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 21.7% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 13.7% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 58.1% of revenue deployed · 59% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 22 of 22 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $167K · 23 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 26 of 26 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2016 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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 58/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 59/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 37/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 18/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 33/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 38/100.