National Association of Professional Surplus Lines Offices Ltd

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
112399515
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2016
Forms available
Form 990 2016
Location
Kansas City, MO, USA
Phone
8167413910
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Chambers of Commerce & Business Leagues

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$6,548,875
Expenses
$6,599,047
Assets
$10,717,398
Liabilities
$3,947,997

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

18 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Gilbert C Hine JR (immediate Past President)
  • David E Leonard (President)
  • James C Drinkwater (vice president)
  • Brady R Kelley (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Brady R Kelley (Executive Director): $420,472 total reported compensation
  • Julie Fritz (Director of Operations): $300,546 total reported compensation
  • Debbie Hill (Director of Meetings & Con): $227,927 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Napslo is an association of insurance brokers, agents and underwriters who are committed to the wholesale distribution system and the surplus lines industry. The association provides networking opportunities, education and career development programs, advocacy of the surplus lines market and value of the wholesale distribution, and regulatory and legislative advocacy on behalf of its members.

What it reported doing in 2016

Napslo offers the following opportunities throughout the year to members:* industry/educational meetings (the annual convention and mid-year leadership forum)* wholesale broker & insurance company education (excess & surplus lines program, advanced e&s program, executive leadership summit, consultative selling and negotiations program, surplus lines management program and online programs)

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 69% of the money available for current operations came from other operating 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

- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
  • Transparency & Controls: 67
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 37
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • Program expense ratio: Limited
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 52.6%; rating input score 53; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: -0.8%; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.62; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.37; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 17.5%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 4.2% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3.4% per year; rating input score 100; 44th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $420K · 18 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $314K reported
  • Consistency: 12 of 13 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2010 to 2016
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 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.

Key Signals

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

  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 53/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 30/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Document-retention policy not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 11/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 35/100.