American Society for Nutrition Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
452473558
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2015
Location
Rockville, MD, USA
Phone
5715272621
Rating
65
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$358,893
Expenses
$433,178
Assets
$561,053
Liabilities
$1,297,583

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

Leadership & pay

18 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • FELICIA PRICE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • GWEN TWILLMAN (CHIEF PROGRAMS AND ADVANCEMENT OFFICER): $356,703 total reported compensation
  • FELICIA PRICE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $250,017 total reported compensation
  • DANTE PRECIADO (SENIOR VP, BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT AND SALES): $204,279 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

At the american society for nutrition foundation, we believe that evidence-based nutrition information and care is the cornerstone to human health and wellness. We strive to enhance and complement the activities of our professional society as it approaches its 100th anniversary in 2028 through visionary, impactful and sustainable goals and initiatives.

What it reported doing in 2024

Awards: asnf enhances the activities of asn by: recognizing excellence in nutrition research and practice; developing the next generation of leaders in nutrition; funding innovative programs; and funding research designed for a healthier world through evidence based nutrition. Asnf offers more than two dozen scientific awards and wishes to add start-upgrants to its scope. Ultimately, asnf will advance the understanding of controversial issues in nutrition science and the dissemination of science-based information.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 93% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 72% for direct work, and 28% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 50
  • Transparency & Controls: 68
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 21
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 59.5%; rating input score 60
  • Program expense ratio: 46.8%; rating input score 47
  • Fundraising efficiency: $2.19 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 19th 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: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 78.5%; rating input score 79; 48th 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: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • 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: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -20.7%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.3; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 2.31; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 49.2%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 14.2% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9.7% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 33.1% per year; rating input score 100; 93rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 59.5% of revenue deployed · 46.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $203K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $357K · 18 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 25 of 26 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2016 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 8 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.

Key Signals

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

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 47/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 10/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 14/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 48/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 2/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 4/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.