National Court Appointed Special Advocate Association
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 911255818
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Seattle, WA, USA
- Phone
- 2062700072
- Rating
- 70
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Standard
- Sector
- Civil Rights
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $5,365,528
- Expenses
- $5,715,942
- Assets
- $6,877,727
- Liabilities
- $2,732,586
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
21 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Tara Perry (Chief Executive Officer)
- Sarah Erny (Deputy Chief Executive Officer)
Highest reported compensation
- Tara Perry (Chief Executive Officer): $324,148 total reported compensation
- Sarah Erny (Deputy Chief Executive Officer): $253,642 total reported compensation
- Catherine Hope Kennedy (Chief Development Officer): $177,319 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The national court appointed special advocate association, together with its state and local member programs, supports and promotes court-appointed volunteer advocacy so every child who has experienced abuse or neglect can be safe, have a permanent home, and the opportunity to thrive.
What it reported doing in 2024
Membership dues from volunteers and casa programs which perform court related casa duties. These funds allow the organization to provide additional training and information to the members to assist in furthering their casa activities.
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 81% 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.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 61
- Transparency & Controls: 79
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 26
- Growth: 20
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 65.3%; rating input score 65
- Program expense ratio: 60.1%; rating input score 60
- Fundraising efficiency: $11.1 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 17th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
- Compensation committee: Pass
- 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: 52.1%; rating input score 52; 16th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: -6.5%; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.2; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.4; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 17.5%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -0.3% per year; rating input score 0; 13th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -1.8% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 10.9% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 65.3% of revenue deployed · 60.1% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 16 of 16 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $3.4M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $324K · 21 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 29 of 30 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 37 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 32 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.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 52/100.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 41/100.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 18/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 43/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 15/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 27/100.