National Center for Advanced Technologies Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
521625043
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Arlington, VA, USA
Phone
7033580000
Rating
63
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
National Security

Reported finances

Revenue
$327,108
Expenses
$330,047
Assets
$501,848
Liabilities
$112,858

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SARAVANAN SHANMUGANATHAN (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • ERIC FANNING (CHAIRMAN): $1,638,460 total reported compensation
  • SARAVANAN SHANMUGANATHAN (PRESIDENT): $442,050 total reported compensation
  • KATHERINE NETTROUR (TREASURER): $348,805 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 national center for advanced technologies (ncat) was founded as a non-profit research and education foundation to provide a bridge between government, industry, and academia, and to encourage cooperative efforts on technology development. Ncat's initial years were dedicated to the development and publication of eight national strategic plans for technology development under the umbrella program key technologies for the year 2000. On completion of that program in 1992, ncat turned its efforts toward affordability initiatives. Most of these initiatives cross the conventional boundaries between government, industry, and academia.

What it reported doing in 2024

Arc program: america rocketry challenge (arc) is the world's largest student rocket competition and key piece of the aerospace and defense industry's strategy to build a stronger u.s. Workforce in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (stem). Sponsored by the aerospace industries association (aia) and the national association of rocketry (nar), arc was created in the fall of 2002 as a one-time celebration of the centennial of flight, but by popular demand became an annual program. Contributions received for the arc program are donor restricted when received and released when program expenditures are incurred.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 75% for direct work, and 25% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 84
  • Transparency & Controls: 63
  • Accountability: 40
  • Sustainability: 36
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 95.3%; rating input score 95
  • Program expense ratio: 94.5%; rating input score 94
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 25th 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: 72.1%; rating input score 72; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 20%; rating input score 20; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -0.9%; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.52; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.22; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 45.8%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -6.9% per year; rating input score 0; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -8.1% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.8% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 95.3% of revenue deployed · 94.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 1 of 5 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $312K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $1.6M · 5 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 25 of 26 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Related organizations: 3 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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 20/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 37/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 52/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 5/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 19/100.