American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
464495751
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Alexandria, VA, USA
Phone
7032999766
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,672,711
Expenses
$3,354,407
Assets
$41,697,950
Liabilities
$3,054,740

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MATTHEW D'UVA (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)
  • JULIE DEAL END 013125 (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • MATTHEW D'UVA (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER): $746,906 total reported compensation
  • JULIE DEAL END 013125 (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $308,628 total reported compensation
  • MARJORIE BYNUM (CHIEF OF STAFF): $293,316 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 invest in innovative hepatology research and in the people who study and treat liver disease.

What it reported doing in 2024

Grants and awardsthe aasld foundation raises funds to support the next generation of reesarchers and clinicial expertise in the field of hepatology. Specifically, the foundation focuses on programs that provide funding to support careers in basic and clinical research, workforce development programs and opportunities for early-career professionals to engage with the community:1. Research grants: funding institutions to advance liver disease research.2. Clinical training awards: supporting advanced training for hepatology fellows, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants.3. Workforce development programs: programs developed to support and mentor those pursuing careers in hepatology research and clinical practice. 4. Abstract awards: enabling early career investigators to present promising research at premier hepatology scientific meetings, fostering the next generation of leaders.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 62% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 63% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 64
  • Transparency & Controls: 63
  • Accountability: 91
  • Sustainability: 79
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 60.8%; rating input score 61
  • Program expense ratio: 75.4%; rating input score 75
  • Fundraising efficiency: $13.77 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 87.1%; rating input score 87; 24th 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 28.2%; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 12.43; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.07; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.5%; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -5.6% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 12.8% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 11.2% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 60.8% of revenue deployed · 75.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $2.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $747K · 11 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 33 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2015 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 12 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 12 filed related-organization links
  • 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: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 48/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • 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.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 44/100.