National Alliance of State and Territorial AIDS Directorsdba Nastad

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
911568650
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2024348090
Rating
85
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Health Treatment Facilities, Primarily Outpatient

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$25,702,405
Expenses
$24,145,636
Assets
$14,978,059
Liabilities
$7,562,875

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

Leadership & pay

38 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • STEPHEN LEE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • NATALIE CRAMER (DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PROGRAM)
  • VIRGINIE CAREY (DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, OPERATIONS)

Highest reported compensation

  • STEPHEN LEE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $318,854 total reported compensation
  • NATALIE CRAMER (DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PROGRAM): $217,848 total reported compensation
  • VIRGINIE CAREY (DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, OPERATIONS): $205,538 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Nastad's mission is to advance the health and dignity of people living with and impacted by HIV/AIDS, viral hepatitis, and intersecting epidemics by strengthening governmental public health and leveraging community partnerships.

What it reported doing in 2024

Syndemic approaches: prevention: nastad's HIV prevention and surveillance activities are primarily funded through a cdc cooperative agreement to conduct capacity building/technical assistance where (ta) activities and communication in support of state and local health department HIV prevention programs funded through cdc's HIV prevention and surveillance cooperative agreement funding for health departments. Additionally, nastad has received funding from cdc through cstlts to develop a learning community regarding HIV cluster detection and response. Nastad is in its third year of funding through a five year subaward from emory university for a cdc national HIV self-testing project called together take me home.viral hepatitis: through a cooperative agreement with funding from the cdc's division of viral hepatitis (through the cstlts funding mechanism) nastad has a (virtual) technical assistance (ta) center (heptac) to support health department hepatitis programs with the prevention, surveillance, and laboratory activities. The program includes supporting health department hepatitis prevention and surveillance programs with tailored technical assistance and other modalities including virtual learning communities. Additionally, nastad is funded for another cooperative agreement with cdc's division of viral hepatitis: national viral hepatitis education, awareness, and capacity building for communities and providers (hepnet). Finally, nastad's hepatitis program also includes participation and leadership in the national viral hepatitis roundtable and promotion of federal programs that address hepatitis a (hav) and hepatitis b (hbv) vaccine for high-risk adults, prevention of hcv, chronic hbv and hcv and HIV hcv co infection. This program is supported by both the membership and corporate donors.drug user health: since september 30, 2022 nastad has been implementing a five year cooperative with cdc's dvh for strengthening overdose prevention program through which nastad provides direct funding to overdose prevention program throughout the us.in august of 2024, nastad received funding through cdc's phiw (formally cstlts) for two overdose prevention related projects. Additionally, nastad is a multi-year subaward from the american academy of addition psychiatry to impletment samhsa opiod response network (orn) funding.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 82% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 51% for direct work, and 49% for grants.

The verdict

STRONG - 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 expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 83
  • Transparency & Controls: 83
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 41
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 80.9%; rating input score 81
  • Program expense ratio: 86.1%; rating input score 86
  • Fundraising efficiency: $130.61 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd 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; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: 6.1%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.62; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.5; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.8%; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 8.7% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.4% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 13.1% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 80.9% of revenue deployed · 86.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 29 of 29 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 5 filed program accomplishments · $20.8M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $319K · 38 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 3 contractors listed · $820K reported
  • Consistency: 33 of 33 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 107 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 99 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 — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 21/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 57/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 28/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 37/100.