National Military Family Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
520899384
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Alexandria, VA, USA
Phone
7039316632
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Military, Veterans' Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$7,265,125
Expenses
$5,225,704
Assets
$8,662,662
Liabilities
$2,110,249

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

18 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • BESA PINCHOTTI (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR/CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • BESA PINCHOTTI (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR/CEO): $228,160 total reported compensation
  • RALEIGH DUTTWEILER (CHIEF IMPACT OFFICER): $149,768 total reported compensation
  • KIMBERLY RYAN-EDGER (SENIOR DIRECTOR OF ADVANCEMENT): $138,905 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Improve life for military families through advocacy, programming and responsive solutions.

What it reported doing in 2025

Providing research and insights: our research and insights work stands alone in the military community for its commitment to human-centered research initiatives. We generate actionable insights for understanding and improving the financial security and well-being of military families. With data from over 16,000 military families, nmfa uses mixed methods research techniques to understand the families we serve. We use both quantitative (numerical) and qualitative (descriptive) measures to capture a detailed, comprehensive state of the military family, supported with listening sessions and in-depth interviews to ensure our understanding is both broad and deep. Nmfa shares its research with partners, policy makers, and legislative leaders as part of its advocacy initiatives. Nmfa also uses the insights to inform its own programming, ensuring military families are getting the critical support they need.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 96% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 78% for direct work, and 22% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of total spending goes to programs. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 60
  • Transparency & Controls: 87
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 59
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 56.7%; rating input score 57
  • Program expense ratio: 73.5%; rating input score 73
  • Fundraising efficiency: $10.09 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 75th 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: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • 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: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 28.1%; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.66; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.24; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 16.7%; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1.7% per year; rating input score 100; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -1.1% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 0.1% per year; rating input score 100; 10th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 56.7% of revenue deployed · 73.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $3.8M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $228K · 18 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 3 contractors listed · $575K reported
  • Consistency: 38 of 38 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 57/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 36/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 51/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 20/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 31/100.