Nebraska Association of School Boards

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
470408744
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Lincoln, NE, USA
Phone
4024234951
Rating confidence
Limited

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,711,742
Expenses
$3,543,747
Assets
$4,374,900
Liabilities
$1,581,784

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

Leadership & pay

32 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JOHN C SPATZ (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • STACY JOLLEY (PRESIDENT)
  • ED SWOTEK (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • JOHN C SPATZ (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $337,533 total reported compensation
  • MEGAN BOLDT (DIRECTOR OF ALICAP): $208,560 total reported compensation
  • COLBY COASH (ASSOCIATE EXECUTIVE DIRECT): $190,508 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 provide programs, services, and advocacy to strengthen public education for all nebraskans.

What it reported doing in 2025

Nasb represents 260 school districts and educational service units across the state of Nebraska. As a member-driven association nasb strives to advance the services and programs necessary to support a board's effective leadership and governance role.nasb advocates for its members at the legislative level by proactively initiating and supporting legislative issues that impact Nebraska public education.nasb offers a variety of educational opportunities for board members. Workshops, conferences, and local board training to address important issues, support best practices and strengthen effective board governance.nasb provides fee-based services including, but not limited to superintendent search services, policy services, emeeting, and negotiation software programs. To ensure a board's fiscal responsibility, members realize cost saving benefits through participation in alicap insurance, Nebraska liquid asset fund, negotiation and information technology network (nitn), and njump/cjump with new and purpose driven programs underway.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 87% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
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

- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
  • Transparency & Controls: 72
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 35
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • Program expense ratio: Limited
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 4.5%; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.23; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.36; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 32.6%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.9% per year; rating input score 100; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.5% per year; rating input score 100; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.2% per year; rating input score 100; 19th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: 24 of 24 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $338K · 32 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $128K reported
  • Consistency: 14 of 14 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay and related organizations
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 41/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 41/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 6/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 22/100.