North Carolina Coalition for Alternatives to the D

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
454288573
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2023
Location
Durham, NC, USA
Phone
9194047409
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Civil Liberties

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$248,172
Expenses
$191,113
Assets
$185,271
Liabilities
$134,942

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Noel E Nickle (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Noel E Nickle (Executive Director): $83,636 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 support alternatives to the death penalty that are fair, victim-centered and cost effective.

What it reported doing in 2025

The North Carolina Coalition for Alternatives to the Death Penalty (NCCADP) continued to hold meetings and programming online via video conferencing as well as hosting in-person educational and advocacy events throughout the state. The organization held large public events in Raleigh in August and in Asheville in October 2025. We continued to endeavor to increase the number of North Carolinians engaged with our work to abolish the death penalty. We continued our strong website and social media presence. We continued to engage with students on college and law school campuses, as well as outreach to faith-based communities, families of victims, families of people who are or have been on death row, and people who are or have been on death row.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 99% 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 most voting board members are independent. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 67
  • Transparency & Controls: 59
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 48
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 62.4%; rating input score 62
  • Program expense ratio: 81.1%; rating input score 81
  • Fundraising efficiency: $15.42 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 0%; rating input score 0; 20th 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: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 23%; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.97; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.73; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 43.8%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 7.8% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.7% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.1% per year; rating input score 100; 31st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 62.4% of revenue deployed · 81.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $155K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $84K · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 27 of 29 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2013 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 48/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 40/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 5/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 6/100.