Network of Schools of Public Policy Affairs and Administration

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
521080991
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2026288965
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,248,625
Expenses
$2,156,744
Assets
$9,311,299
Liabilities
$995,109

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

Leadership & pay

25 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MOHAMAD ALKADRY VICE PRESIDENT (THEN PRESIDENT AS OF 10/24)
  • SARA RINFRET COUNCIL MEMBER (THEN VICE-PRESIDENT AS OF 10/24)
  • RAJADE M BERRY PRESIDENT (THEN IMM PAST PRESIDENT AS OF 10/24)
  • MARTHA BOHRT (INTERIM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • ANGEL WRIGHT-LAINER (FORMER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • ANGEL WRIGHT-LAINER (FORMER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $225,095 total reported compensation
  • MARTHA BOHRT (INTERIM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $131,072 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 ensure excellence in education and training for public service and to promote the ideal of public service.

What it reported doing in 2024

Education and outreach - education and outreach includes the following programs: the commission on peer review and accreditation ("copra") is a specialized accreditor of master's degree programs in public policy, affairs, and administration.naspaa's data center collects information from member schools in public policy, affairs, and administration.held during naspaa's annual conference, the doctoral workshop covers information for new doctoral directors on current trends in doctoral education, inclusivity, and recruitment/retention of diverse populations.separately, naspaa's diversity program promotes equity and inclusion in graduate studies; and areas pertinent to public policy and public administration and management.the human capital agenda program monitors and analyzes governmental hiring of graduate-educated employees.job board: publicservicecareers.org is the most authoritative and widely used website for finding jobs, career advice, and information on degrees in public service and public affairs. It is sponsored by the three most prominent organizations in professional public service and education: naspaa, association for public policy analysis and management, and american society for public administration.the journal of public affairs education ("jpae") is dedicated to advancing teaching and learning in public affairs, which includes the fields of public policy analysis, public administration, and public management.naspaa provides mentoring and institutional guidance to minority serving institutions as well as institutional sponsorship of public policy and international affairs fellowship projects ("ppia").naspaa's pi alpha program sponsors the national honor society chapter for students enrolled in graduate programs in public policy, affairs, and administration.student simulation is a daylong competition for students at naspaa schools to work together to solve a complex public policy problem by using a simulation model that emulates the process of solving real world problems while offering a distinctive experience to students.teaching & learning institute provides an online marketplace connecting students and faculty in public affairs schools around the world with simulations, case studies, data, and service-learning opportunities at the lowest possible cost and highest possible quality. Naspaa combines the global electronic platform with outstanding training for case and simulation developers, and for classroom teachers.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 88% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 99% 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 - 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 the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 54
  • Transparency & Controls: 68
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 55
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 58.9%; rating input score 59
  • Program expense ratio: 63.6%; rating input score 64
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 50%; rating input score 50; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 4.1%; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.32; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.11; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 16.5%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -0.1% per year; rating input score 0; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.6% per year; rating input score 100; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1.7% per year; rating input score 100; 18th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 58.9% of revenue deployed · 63.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 18 of 18 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $225K · 25 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 33 of 34 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2013 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.
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 59/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 50/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 48/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: CEO compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 16/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grants require schedule f did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 57/100.