Naafa

Legal name: National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
237296874
IRS 990 coverage
2022–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2021
Location
Las Vegas, NV, US
Phone
9165586880
Rating
62
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$236,416
Expenses
$226,062
Assets
$232,904
Liabilities
$4,250

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • TIGRESS OSBORN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • TIGRESS OSBORN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $100,100 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To make the world a better place for fat people through education, advocacy, and support.

What it reported doing in 2024

Civil rights advocacy -the campaign for size freedom established in fy 2022/23, in conjuction with the fat legal advocacy, rights and education project (flare) a project of the law office of brandie solovay, continued this fiscal year. The campaign for size freedom promotes grass-roots advocacy for the civil rights of fat people across the united states through education and awareness while focusing on fat as intersectional and as a social justice issue. The campaign supports fat community across the nation in a variety of ways including promotion through social media, educational programming and acting as a subject matter expert in the field of fat rights. Naafa received specific requests to meet with various individuals as advisors in their activities to address fat discrimination in their areas, coalition building and in understanding the law as it pertains to their rights as a marginalized group. As a result, this fiscal year, the city of minneapolis passed legislation making height and weight protected classes.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 94% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 94% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and a relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 56
  • Transparency & Controls: 95
  • Accountability: 21
  • Sustainability: 41
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 53.6%; rating input score 54
  • Program expense ratio: 56.1%; rating input score 56
  • Fundraising efficiency: $30.83 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • 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: 0%; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 4.4%; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.03; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 44.3%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 15.8% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 12.5% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 14.2% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 2 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 53.6% of revenue deployed · 56.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 12 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $127K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $100K · 13 people listed
  • Consistency: 40 of 42 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2022 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 54/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 56/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 49/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 41/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 5/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Fund balance restriction sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 41/100.