Stateramp Inc D/b/a Govramp

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
863198188
IRS 990 coverage
2024–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2023
Location
Indianapolis, IN, USA
Phone
3172386246
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Business and Industry

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$534,725
Expenses
$865,773
Assets
$839,655
Liabilities
$1,932,220

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JR SLOAN (PRESIDENT)
  • JOE BIELAWSKI (PAST PRESIDENT)
  • LEAH MCGRATH (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • LEAH MCGRATH (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $175,984 total reported compensation
  • CHANCE GRUBB (DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT ENGAGEMENT): $138,343 total reported compensation
  • JESSICA VAN EERDE (CHIEF OF OPERATIONS): $130,548 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 promote cybersecurity best practices through education, advocacy, and policy development to support its members and improve the cyber posture of state and local governments and the citizens they serve. This standardized approach allows providers serving (cont'd on sch o) state and local governments to verify their security posture and prove their cybersecurity compliance to their government clients.

What it reported doing in 2024

Stateramp had 406 private sector provider members. These members receive education on how to promote cybersecurity best practices to protect citizen interests. Stateramp had 57 participating government members from state, local and education organizations (sled). These organizations have engaged stateramp to recognize and adopt standards that provide effective and efficient cloud security solutions. Stateramp had 105 cloud solutions on its authorized product list. These solutions meet minimum security requirements. Stateramp had 217 cloud solutions on its progressing product list. These solutions are progressing toward meeting minimum security requirements.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 100% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program 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: 71
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 14
  • Growth: 60

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: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • 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: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 80%; rating input score 80; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 56
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -61.9%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.97; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 2.3; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 64%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 80.5% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 85.2% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: 4 of 5 board members independent · 5 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $866K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $176K · 9 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 9 of 9 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 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.

Key Signals

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

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 2/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 42/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 2/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 1/100.