National Science Policy Network

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
331309458
IRS 990 coverage
2025–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2024
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2027837200
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Service Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$341,788
Expenses
$388,994
Assets
$68,425
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • TEPRING PIQUADO PHD (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)

Highest reported compensation

  • TEPRING PIQUADO PHD (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER): $160,000 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To be the leading organization that develops the skills, community, and pathways for the next generation of scientists and engineers to strengthen the foundation of trustworthy, evidence-informed public policy making for a healthier, safer world.

What it reported doing in 2025

Nspn advances evidence-informed policymaking by building a national community of early-career stem professionals and equipping them with the skills to engage in public policy. Through leadership development, science-policy analysis development , and multi-sector convenings, we provide practical experience in legislative analysis, science communication, diplomacy and engagement. Our integrated model connects scientists with policymakers and partner organizations, creating pathways for meaningful civic participation. Collectively, these efforts strengthen the science-policy ecosystem and prepare the next generation to contribute effectively at all levels of government. In 2025, nspn trained more than 2,000 stem professionals in policy engagement, supported by over 90 volunteer instructors and panelists who provided mentorship and expanded access to evidence-informed policymaking expertise.

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 95% 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. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 87
  • Transparency & Controls: 66
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 20
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 97.4%; rating input score 97
  • Program expense ratio: 85.6%; rating input score 86
  • Fundraising efficiency: $11.51 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 73.8%; rating input score 74; 49th 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -13.8%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.18; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 41.1%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 96.8% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -52.2% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 97.4% of revenue deployed · 85.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $333K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $160K · 10 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 24 of 25 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 41/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 15/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 11/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 6/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.