National Association of Letter Carriers

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
221417426
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2011–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025
Location
Manchester, NJ, USA
Phone
2019810790
Rating
38
Verdict
REVIEW
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$150,676
Expenses
$151,415
Assets
$190,686
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

24 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Richard O'Connell (President)
  • Nelson Gaskill (First Vice-President)
  • Peter Bednarz (Second Vice-President)

People named in this filing

  • Richard O'Connell (President)
  • Nelson Gaskill (First Vice-President)
  • Peter Bednarz (Second Vice-President)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

The NJSALC serves as a liaison between its membership and members of Congress. NJSALC provides two first year college scholarships to a member's dependent child. NJSALC educates its members on legislative matters which affect them and their occupation.

What it reported doing in 2025

The officers of this organization met with and educated members of Congress on the importance of supporting the United States Postal Service. This organization also educates its members at conventions and meetings on the issues which affect the USPS financially. The NJSALC consists of 12,615 members.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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

REVIEW - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue has grown recently. 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: 82
  • Sustainability: 43
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -0.5%; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.26; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 28.9%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 2.5% per year; rating input score 100; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.7% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 24 people listed
  • Consistency: 8 of 9 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 1 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2011 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 24 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part III transfer expenses within program total did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 29/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 13/100.