Food Allergy Nursing Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
332234660
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2024–2024
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2024
Location
Great Neck, NY, USA
Phone
5164574763
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Nursing Services (General)

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,970
Expenses
$1,670
Assets
$300
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • OLGA KAGAN (PRESIDENT)
  • LINDSAY GREEN (VICE PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • OLGA KAGAN (PRESIDENT)
  • LINDSAY GREEN (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • SUSAN KELLY (TREASURER)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

Our mission is to advance nursing education, research, leadership, and professional collaboration in the food allergy subspecialty. We aim to improve patient outcomes and quality of life by cultivating a food allergy-informed nursing workforce, collaborating on developing alternative care models that leverage technology to meet the needs of impactedpopulations, and translating evidence-based practices into care.

What it reported doing in 2024

Fana offers online educational speaker series, food allergy social media educational awareness campaigns, and web-based resources to nurses on fana's website. Our members present asspeakers at external conferences. In january of 2025, fana has established apartnership with another nonprofit nursing society that aligns with our mission to offer discounted dual memberships to nurses.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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 the filed numbers largely add up. Total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown and reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 67
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 51
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 63.1%; rating input score 63
  • Program expense ratio: 74.5%; rating input score 74

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 15.2%; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.18; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: 63.1% of revenue deployed · 74.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 7 of 7 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 15/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.