National Placement and Referral Alliance C/o Civica Management

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
822321770
IRS 990 coverage
2019–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2018, Form 990-N 2017
Location
Centennial, CO, USA
Phone
8883302756
Rating
49
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Chambers of Commerce & Business Leagues

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$319,277
Expenses
$303,468
Assets
$199,253
Liabilities
$115,967

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JOHN BENBROOK (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • CHARLOTTE BALLUFF (BOARD MEMBER)
  • MARCY BASKIN (BOARD MEMBER)
  • MARNIE BILN (BOARD MEMBER)

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

Our national and local leadership is on point to improve processes and professional development. Our industry offers an invaluable benefit to the families we serve. This associations driving force is to establish fair business practices to provide better services for consumers through partnership, innovation, and public policy

What it reported doing in 2024

Npra protects the communities we serve through education, membership, best practices, ethics and values, government affairs. We provide a platform for our members to share their knowledge and views concerning industry practices, legislation, learning, and collaboration. We facilitate change, support professional accountability and encourage open lines of communication. Npra has established a code of ethics and recommended set of best practices to ensure seniors and their families are cared for properly. All npra members must abide by our code of ethics.

Operating model

Revenue model
Membership-supported. 74% of the money available for current operations came from membership dues.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. 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: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 83
  • Sustainability: 42
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 25th 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: 5%; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.66; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.58; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 14.7% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 26.3% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 12 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 12 people listed
  • Consistency: 10 of 11 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2019 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 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 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 51/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 30/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 9/100.