National SAM Innovation Project Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
454454376
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Louisville, KY, USA
Phone
5025099774
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Educational Services and Schools - Other

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,526,124
Expenses
$4,290,475
Assets
$1,431,675
Liabilities
$677,695

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MARK SHELLINGER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • ROBERTA HENDEE (PRESIDENT)
  • PAUL KATNIK (VICE-PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • MARK SHELLINGER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $288,772 total reported compensation
  • ERIC KRAMER (SOFTWARE DESIGNER): $169,600 total reported compensation
  • JIM MERCER (DATA ANALYST): $137,800 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

NSIP was established to provide a professional development process for school leaders to improve teaching and learning.

What it reported doing in 2024

NSIP starts with a readiness training workshop for the principal and SAM team. Once the school community and principal have completed the readiness steps, Time/Task Analysis, or shadowing, is conducted for one week, NSIP then provides two weeks of on-site training and support to implement Time Track, the daily meeting and First Responders. NSIP continues this support with monthly visits by a Time Change Coach and professional development support. The annual service fee also covers all expenses for the SAM team, except airfare, to attend the NSIP annual national conference.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 100% 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

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 expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 84
  • Transparency & Controls: 77
  • Accountability: 65
  • Sustainability: 11
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 86%; rating input score 86
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 75%; rating input score 75; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -21.7%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.33; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.47; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 14.2%; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -1.9% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -0.2% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 0.4% per year; rating input score 100; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 86% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 8 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $3.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $289K · 10 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 25 of 25 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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: 4 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 6/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 11/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 20/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 22/100.