National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
455334205
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2017
Location
Vienna, VA, USA
Phone
7039425711
Rating
62
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Public Interest Law

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$456,260
Expenses
$84,842
Assets
$1,104,750
Liabilities
$6,886

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

Leadership & pay

19 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Alex Graham (CEO)
  • Thomas Harlow (Interim CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • Thomas Harlow (Interim CEO): $164,291 total reported compensation
  • Alex Graham (CEO): $114,650 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The mission of the NAELA Foundation is to advance the goals of the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys and advocate for the rights of older Americans and people with special needs. See Schedule O for continuation.

What it reported doing in 2024

The NAELA Foundation's "Elevating Voices" initiative encompasses a combined qualitative and quantitative strategy to address Medicaid estate recovery. Qualitatively, the project focuses on storytelling as a powerful tool to convey the real-life impact of Medicaid estate recovery on affected individuals and families. To enrich its qualitative approach, the NAELA Foundation will also conduct a quantitative analysis by way of a collegiate data analytics case study competition. To collect targeted data analysis on impacted populations, competing teams of graduate students will perform a comprehensive review of existing data sources to compile evidence highlighting generational ramifications and societal implications stemming from the loss of a home through Medicaid estate recovery.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 95% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 89% 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 - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 36
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 79
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 19%; rating input score 19
  • Program expense ratio: 77.1%; rating input score 77
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 80th 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 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 81.4%; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 13.02; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 53.4%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -2.9% per year; rating input score 0; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9.5% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 16.2% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 19% of revenue deployed · 77.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $65K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $164K · 19 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 23 of 23 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2018 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 19/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: CEO compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 3/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 48/100.