National Council for State Authorization Reciprocity Agreements

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
474382124
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Boulder, CO, USA
Phone
7206801600
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Research Institutes and/or Public Policy Analysis

Reported finances

Revenue
$8,433,292
Expenses
$7,304,469
Assets
$17,809,413
Liabilities
$5,208,549

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

Leadership & pay

26 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Marianne Boeke PhD (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Marianne Boeke PhD (President): $454,009 total reported compensation
  • Jeannie Yockey-Fine (Senior Vice Pres & General Counsel): $278,410 total reported compensation
  • Terri Taylor-Straut (Sr Dir Edu Prog): $203,388 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

National Council for State Authorization Reciprocity Agreements (NC-SARA) is committed to supporting the establishment of an effective and efficient state-level reciprocity process that will allow students across the country to enjoy increased access to higher education opportunities and will reflect the core aims of efficiently ensuring quality programs and consumer protection in a rapidly changing education landscape.

What it reported doing in 2024

NC-SARA is working to achieve its mission by doing the following: A. Promoting and advancing efforts to ensure inter-regional alignment on core elements and requirements of State Authorization Reciprocity Agreements (SARA), while also maintaining a limited role within the overall governance of SARA; B. Representing the full spectrum of stakeholders in the higher education community, including all institutional sectors (including, but not limited to, large and small-scale distance education providers), regional and national accreditation agencies, and state officials including state regulators and state higher education executive officers.C. Building public awareness of and support for SARA through regular communications to the field; D. Serving as a forum for the higher education community at large to address concerns and questions as they arise.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 97% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 96% 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

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 64
  • Transparency & Controls: 73
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 57
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 66.9%; rating input score 67
  • Program expense ratio: 79.5%; rating input score 79
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 96.7%; rating input score 97; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 13.4%; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.44; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.29; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 26.2%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 11.4% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.8% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 15.5% per year; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 66.9% of revenue deployed · 79.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 17 of 17 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $5.8M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $454K · 26 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 30 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2015 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 40 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 35 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 7/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 35/100.