National Defense Information Sharing and Analysis Center

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
822397014
IRS 990 coverage
2017–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2028882724
Rating
59
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
National Security

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,764,940
Expenses
$2,177,180
Assets
$5,195,989
Liabilities
$682,358

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Steven D Shirley (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Steven D Shirley (Executive Director): $413,234 total reported compensation
  • William M Jimenez (Director, Business, Cybersecurity Strategy): $334,119 total reported compensation
  • Vanessa Gordon (Lead Analyst): $185,979 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 Defense Information Sharing and Analysis Center (ND-ISAC) is the national defense sectors nonprofit organization formed to enhance the security and resilience of the defense industry and its strategic partners.

What it reported doing in 2024

DIB SCC - Formed by industry under applicable U.S. Government policies and procedures, the Defense Industrial Base Sector Coordinating Council (DIB SCC) sustains and promotes the security, resilience, and critical infrastructure protection of the U.S. Defense Industrial Base, both as an industry coordinating body within the DIB sector, and in partnership with the U.S. Department of Defense as the DIB Sector Risk Management Agency (SRMA) via the DoD managed counterpart DIB Government Coordinating Council (DIB GCC). The National Defense ISAC maintains relevant coordination and operational activities of the DIB SCC as the sectors information sharing, analysis, and operational mechanism.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 100% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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

MIXED - Most voting board members are independent and the filed numbers largely add up. 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: 34
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 63
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 34.8%; rating input score 35
  • Program expense ratio: 44.2%; rating input score 44
  • Fundraising efficiency: $0 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: 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: 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: 21.3%; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.39; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.13; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 56.3%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 9.9% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 13.7% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.9% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 34.8% of revenue deployed · 44.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $961K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $413K · 12 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $228K reported
  • Consistency: 26 of 26 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2017 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 35/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 44/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: CEO compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 1/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 53/100.