National Association of Secretaries of State

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
611332655
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2026243525
Rating
59
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Professional Societies, Associations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,708,622
Expenses
$1,617,164
Assets
$2,134,146
Liabilities
$496,258

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

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • HON STEVE SIMON (PRESIDENT)
  • HON MICHAEL WATSON (PRESIDENT-ELECT)
  • HON SCOTT SCHWAB (PAST PRESIDENT)
  • HON STEPHANIE THOMAS (VICE-PRESIDENT EASTERN REGION)
  • HON NANCY LANDRY (VICE-PRESIDENT SOUTHERN REGION)
  • HON MICHAEL HOWE (VICE-PRESIDENT MID-WESTERN REGION)

Highest reported compensation

  • LESLIE REYNOLDS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $249,490 total reported compensation
  • LINDSAY FORSON (EMPLOYEE): $170,765 total reported compensation
  • STACY DODD (EMPLOYEE): $124,757 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To serve as a catalyst in state leadership programs to educate members on methods to improve the performance and effectiveness within state government, and to establish ties with other national or regional organizations to strengthen citizen participation in the process of public decision making.

What it reported doing in 2024

Conferences held to educate members on innovations and programs in state government.

Operating model

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

MIXED - Most voting board members are independent and revenue has grown recently. 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: 45
  • Transparency & Controls: 56
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 43
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 43.4%; rating input score 43
  • Program expense ratio: 46.1%; rating input score 46
  • Fundraising efficiency: $18.42 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 19th 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: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • 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: 5.4%; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.32; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.23; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 48.7%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -0.8% per year; rating input score 0; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.7% per year; rating input score 100; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.7% per year; rating input score 100; 37th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 43.4% of revenue deployed · 46.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 49 of 49 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $746K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $249K · 16 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 30 of 31 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 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.

Key Signals

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

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 43/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 46/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 56/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 51/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Conflict-of-interest policy not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 52/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 2/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 29/100.