National Cybersecurity Center

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
811162264
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Colorado Springs, CO, USA
Phone
7203541847
Rating
48
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Consumer Protection

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,416,292
Expenses
$2,080,226
Assets
$569,407
Liabilities
$43,569

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • ALETA JEFFRESS (DIRECTOR): $219,762 total reported compensation
  • GREG OSLAN (DIRECTOR): $53,135 total reported compensation
  • HARRY RADUEGE (DIRECTOR): $4,207 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Ncc provides collaborative cybersecurity response with comprehensive knowledge and capabilities through training, education, and research.

What it reported doing in 2024

Cyber educationthe ncc's cyber education program provides cybersecurity leadership, with two main pillars: k-12 education, ncc student alliance, and the adult education initiative. As our nation addresses the critical gap in skilled cybersecurity talent, ncc addresses the importance of cyber education through programs and partnerships that invite students to participate in an ecosystem which encourages them to learn, explore, and build thier skills.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 62% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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 the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 16
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 14
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 9.3%; rating input score 9
  • Program expense ratio: 6.4%; rating input score 6
  • Fundraising efficiency: $65.16 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 16th 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: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 86
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Limited
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -46.9%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.27; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.08; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 13.4%; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 9.3% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.9% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.7% per year; rating input score 100; 29th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 9.3% of revenue deployed · 6.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 14 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $134K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $220K · 14 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 major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2016 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 9/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 6/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 3/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 13/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 27/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 46/100.