National Harm Reduction Coalition
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 943204958
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- New York, NY, USA
- Phone
- 2122136376
- Rating
- 74
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Health Treatment Facilities, Primarily Outpatient
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $8,608,979
- Expenses
- $6,583,528
- Assets
- $6,279,268
- Liabilities
- $1,093,269
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
13 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- LAURA GUZMAN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- LAURA GUZMAN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $187,545 total reported compensation
- KEILA NUNEZ (CONTROLLER): $165,838 total reported compensation
- SONDRA GROVER (CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER): $161,455 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
National harm reduction coalition is a national capacity building and advocacy organization that promotes the health and dignity of individuals and communities impacted by drug use. Nhrc advances policies and programs that help people address the adverse effects of drug use, including overdose, HIV, hepatitis c, addiction, and incarceration.
What it reported doing in 2024
Training and education - nhrc capacity building team provides skills-building activities to service providers, public health departments, and other community stakeholders by offering trainings, technical assistance, informational workshops, and mentoring on topics related to substance use and substance use disorder, overdose prevention and education, and HIV/AIDS and hepatitis c prevention.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 97% 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. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 74
- Transparency & Controls: 66
- Accountability: 86
- Sustainability: 56
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 65.8%; rating input score 66
- Program expense ratio: 86%; rating input score 86
- Fundraising efficiency: $46.84 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 17th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 43.6%; rating input score 44; 14th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Fail
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 23.5%; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.95; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.17; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 11.9%; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 12.8% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 11.5% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 10.5% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 65.8% of revenue deployed · 86% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $5.7M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $188K · 13 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $582K reported
- Consistency: 34 of 35 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 12 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 7 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.
- Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 44/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 9 not reported.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 35/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 25/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 47/100.