National Association of Certified Professional Midwives

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
043585032
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2007
Location
Austin, TX, USA
Phone
9073210184
Rating
44
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Chambers of Commerce & Business Leagues

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$521,836
Expenses
$484,117
Assets
$183,408
Liabilities
$55,287

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Kiki Jordan LM CPM (President)
  • Tigest Ejeta CPM (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Cassaundra Jah (Executive Dir.): $121,583 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

VisionNACPM envisions a primary birth care system in our country where all birthing people access care through a midwife, where birth place is the choice of the family, and where all childbearing people and their babies have the same chance to be healthy. PurposeNACPMs purpose is to be a powerful, collective voice for Certified Professional Midwives. We strengthen and support excellence in the profession and influence birth health policy to ensure that all childbearing people and babies have a healthy start.

What it reported doing in 2025

Advocate for the profession of Certified Professional Midwives (CPMs), both to support CPMs and to improve birth care outcomes in the United States. Participate in national healthcare collaborations and conferences and represent the profession to the public and to policy makers. Support the development of the profession by sharing key information and providing continuing education opportunities through website, email, meetings, webinars, and the development of the practice committee.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 95% 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.

The verdict

MIXED - 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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 69
  • Sustainability: 33
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
  • 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: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 7.2%; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.38; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.3; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 25.1%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -13.5% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -0.7% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 15.2% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $122K · 13 people listed
  • Consistency: 10 of 11 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2014 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 19/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 50/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 11/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 19/100.