National Police Accountability Project Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
134045142
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2011, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Kansas City, KS, USA
Phone
5042200401
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Administration of Justice, Courts

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$916,924
Expenses
$1,434,867
Assets
$3,434,626
Liabilities
$131,702

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

Leadership & pay

18 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Julia Yoo (Immediate Past President)
  • Jonathan Feinberg (President)
  • Lauren Bonds (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Lauren Bonds (Executive Director): $180,785 total reported compensation
  • Mary Gagliardi (Dir of Development & Finance): $152,371 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To promote the accountability of law enforcement officers and their employers for violations of the Constitution or laws of the United States.

What it reported doing in 2024

NPAP works to build a future free of police violence while seeking justice for those harmed by the existing system. NPAP supports a network of 500+ civil rights attorneys that brings thousands of misconduct cases against abusive police departments, jails and prisons across the country. NPAP provides additional resources so our member attorneys can bring bigger, more impactful cases against departments and cities to force a change to their practices. Our focus is on the South, Midwest, rural and smaller jurisdictions where police misconduct is egregious, yet civil rights attorneys are scarce. We are actively growing the numbers and expertise of attorneys skilled in police misconduct cases in these geographic areas. We also support communities ability to engage in advocacy by providing legal expertise and counsel to community-led and community-driven efforts to reform and reimagine policing across the country.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 75% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 85
  • Transparency & Controls: 58
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 29
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 80.8%; rating input score 81
  • Fundraising efficiency: $5.18 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 86.7%; rating input score 87; 3rd 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: -56.5%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.39; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.04; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 23.2%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 27.3% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 10.9% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 20.9% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 80.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 16 of 16 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $181K · 18 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 34 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 7 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: 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 18/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 2/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 11/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D revenue reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 55/100.