National Energy Assistance Directors Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
421445636
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2023335915
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Energy Resources Conservation and Development

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$528,238
Expenses
$592,729
Assets
$124,191
Liabilities
$863

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MARK WOLFE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • MARK WOLFE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $160,593 total reported compensation
  • CASSANDRA LOVEJOY (POLICY AND MANAGING DIRECT): $104,255 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Collectively represent state governments to secure federal resources (funding) and to represent neada before federal agencies and national organizations. Serving as a facilitating organization to assure effective sharing of state practices to maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of state management of energy assistance programs.collect, analyze and share data which demonstrates the effect of the energy assistance program and the needed level of support. Research the impact of the program and provide information to states and policy makers.

What it reported doing in 2024

Energy hardship project: fluctuations in energy prices can be devastating for low-income families struggling to keep the lights on. Through the energy hardship project, neada tracks energy price projections as published by the energy information administration and calculates how far the average liheap grant will go to pay families' energy bills in the coming year.inclusive shared solar initiative: the inclusive shared solar initiative (issi) is a collaboration between neada, the national association of state energy officials (naseo) and the New York state energy research and development authority (nyserda), and will work with stakeholders in state government, low-income communities, solar developers, and financial institutions to expand community solar access for low-income communities.national energy assistance day: national energy assistance day is an annual event on february 1 to raise awareness about energy unaffordability and the federal, state and local energy assistance programs that can help families pay their bills. The national energy assistance day toolkit contains resources to help states, local agencies, and other organizations get the word out about energy assistance.public service announcement campaign: liheap requires constant outreach in order to reach new eligible households and ensure low-income families know they can get help with their energy bills. Neada has created a cross-platform campaign to help states and local agencies get the word out about liheap. We have developed radio and television public service announcements, which will be made available to radio and tv stations around the country, as well as social-media ready videos to increase awareness of energy assistance and related public health concerns.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 77% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 87
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 19
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 95.1%; rating input score 95
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

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: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -12.2%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.21; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 44.7%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 12.8% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.9% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 0.4% per year; rating input score 100; 19th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 95.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $564K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $161K · 12 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 23 of 23 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2016 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 15/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 10/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 3/100.