National Association of Womens Gymnastics Judges
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 510178999
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2012–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Apple Valley, MN, USA
- Phone
- 3212172347
- Rating
- 82
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Chambers of Commerce & Business Leagues
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $3,362,845
- Expenses
- $3,016,608
- Assets
- $3,914,916
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
18 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Bonnie Synol (Vice President)
- Teresa Barnard (President)
People named in this filing
- Leslie McPeek (Director)
- Brenda Eberhardt (Director)
- Evelyn Paradis (Director)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
It is the mission of the National Association of Women Gymnastics Judges to provide professional development for its members and to support and promote women's gymnastics in the United States of America.This Mission will be accomplished by: Providing the membership with education, communication, and representation. Contracting Officials to various organizations with gymnastic programs upon request. Providing other services to the gymnastic community.GoalsThe National Association of Women's Gymnastics Judges (NAWGJ) works at the local, state, regional and national levels of the United States, servicing the gymnastics community and its judges. The goals of the NAWGJ are: Teaching and training its members thereby promoting judging excellence. Functioning as a service organization to the entire gymnastics community. Disseminating judging information. Assigning officials to competitions. Promoting interest in the sport of gymnastics
What it reported doing in 2024
For the year ending October 31, 2025Accomplishments and activities: NAWGJ has 2448 active members, an increase over last year Provided judges for 3279 meets in 2024-25, including 386 collegiate meets. Made 24,382 assignments in 2024-25, including 2,478 collegiate competitions In September 2025, NAWGJ introduced updated policies and forms related to Professional Conduct, Disciplinary Procedures, Media Policy and Social Media PolicyMajor Educational Accomplishments: 2024-25 Rapid Reviews and Practice Judging videos updated to reflect changes for all Developmental levels and XCEL divisions I Pads and stands were purchased for each Regional Judging Director. The I Pads were used to video the 2025 National Judges Cup videos will be used for future educational projects The NAWGJ website now has 2504 subscribers. We will begin a refresh of our website in Fall of 2026. Our YouTube Channel continues to gain viewership.? The National Judges Cup was held in Fort Lauderdale, Florida in January 2025. Funds raised are used for educational projects.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 91% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 97% 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
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filed totals do not add up and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 81
- Transparency & Controls: 80
- Accountability: 88
- Sustainability: 65
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 86.9%; rating input score 87
- Program expense ratio: 97.5%; rating input score 97
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 88.9%; rating input score 89; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- 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: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 10.3%; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.3; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 5.4% per year; rating input score 100; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 4.3% per year; rating input score 100; 36th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 5.4% per year; rating input score 100; 37th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 86.9% of revenue deployed · 97.5% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 18 of 18 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.9M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 18 people listed
- Consistency: 17 of 18 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules
- Filing history: 13 filing years from 2012 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- 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 — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 46/100.