National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
350539460
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Indianapolis, IN, USA
Phone
3178755250
Rating
52
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$26,809,164
Expenses
$26,723,196
Assets
$24,559,256
Liabilities
$4,468,886

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

Leadership & pay

30 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • NEIL ALLDREDGE (PRESIDENT &)

Highest reported compensation

  • NEIL ALLDREDGE (PRESIDENT &): $1,418,638 total reported compensation
  • JIMI GRANDE (SVP - FEDERA): $628,892 total reported compensation
  • SARAH SCHNETTLER (SVP - MEMBER): $467,654 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Namic organizes and leads association member efforts to improve the health and performance of the property casualty insurance through its government affairs (advocacy, lobbying, issue management, public affairs, and federal and state grassroots efforts including political action); education/certification (board, executive, management; technical); and insurance business support services (professional liability insurance, compliance, and employee benefit programs). Namic's efforts are directed through its 501(c)6 parent organization and within related subsidiaries and other entities as described herein.

What it reported doing in 2025

Education and certification - namic develops, organizes and conducts in- person and virtual industry/member education and event programs addressing insurance company operations (underwriting, claims, marketing), governance, and general/executive management involving more than 7,500 participants annually. Namic also provides programming and administration of two certification programs for member company boards of directors and company managers involving more than 1,200 individuals seeking or holding certifications. Namic plans and manages an annual convention attended by more than 1,500 business attendees and exhibitors.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 98% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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: 93
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 28
  • Growth: 60

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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 6 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Pass
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Scored; rating input score 0

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 0.3%; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.92; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.18; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 14.2%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 6.4% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 21 of 21 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $1.4M · 30 people listed · 6 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 4 contractors listed · $755K reported
  • Consistency: 14 of 15 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay and related organizations
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2009 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 10 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 7 filed related-organization links
  • 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 26/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 27/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 13/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 54/100.