National Art Materials Trade Associ
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 116015643
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2020–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Huntersville, NC, USA
- Phone
- 7048926244
- Rating
- 50
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Chambers of Commerce & Business Leagues
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,400,990
- Expenses
- $1,318,107
- Assets
- $2,128,215
- Liabilities
- $912,903
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
10 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- LAWRENCE HOFFMAN (PRESIDENT)
- JOSHUA BELT (PRESIDENT EL)
Highest reported compensation
- LEAH SIFFRINGER (EXECUTIVE DI): $124,406 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Namta's mission is to make the industry and association recognized by its members, consumers, and art/craft educators as a primary source of information on art/creative materials. Namta is a leader and unifying force in the support, sustainability and advocacy of art/creative materials business.
What it reported doing in 2024
The association continues to grow "namta connect- and the diversity of its programs available to our members through the theatre (demo alley), the cafe, the gallery and the studio. The theatre consists of live informational sessions and demo alley. The cafe is a platform for our members to catch-up and exchange ideas with each other in the form of roundtables, meetings, and happy hours. The gallery is a forum for members-only that resides on www.namta.org the studio is a place for namta members to view past namta connect session recordings through the learning management system. Both the theatre and the cafe are through the zoom platform.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 99% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- Distribution model
- Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.
The verdict
MIXED - 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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 0
- Transparency & Controls: 90
- Accountability: 90
- Sustainability: 48
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
- Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- 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: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 5.9%; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.61; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.43; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 9.4%; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: 26.4% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 17.8% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments
- Leadership: top reported pay $124K · 10 people listed
- Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $106K reported
- Consistency: 11 of 12 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules
- Filing history: 4 filing years from 2020 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
- Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
- 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 0/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
- Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 52/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 58/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 18/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 39/100.