National Network of Public Health Institutes (NNPHI)
Legal name: National Network of Public Health Institutes Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 721505359
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Washington, DC, US
- Phone
- (888) 996-6744
- Rating
- 81
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Public Health Program (Includes General Health and Wellness Promotion Services)
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $30,248,694
- Expenses
- $30,121,515
- Assets
- $13,580,457
- Liabilities
- $6,060,071
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
19 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- JAMES JELLISON (VICE PRESIDENT)
- VINCENT LAFRONZA (PRESIDENT AND CEO)
Highest reported compensation
- VINCENT LAFRONZA (PRESIDENT AND CEO): $404,539 total reported compensation
- JAMES JELLISON (VICE PRESIDENT): $308,784 total reported compensation
- KIM O RAMSEY (SVP, FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION): $254,031 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
NNPHI is the national membership association for local and state public health institutes (PHIs) nationwide. These nonprofit, non-partisan organizations excel at creating innovative models and scaling projects locally and statewide. With a presence in all 50 states and numerous territories, our national network can move quickly and efficiently to strengthen the work of local and state public health systems and workforces.
What it reported doing in 2024
Network engagement- nnphi's network engagement portfolio supports an active network of 50-member public health institutes serving states, territories, and tribes. This portfolio is responsible for nnphi's recruitment and retention of members, providing membership benefits including technical assistance to members, tracking member services and capacities through nnphi's crm, and leading content development for nnphi's signature event, the annual conference. The portfolio also provides capacity-building assistance to emerging institutes (fee-for-service or grant-supported) and leads collaborative public health programs with members. Lnetwork engagement- nnphi's network engagement portfolio supports an active network of 50-member public health institutes serving states, territories, and tribes. This portfolio is responsible for nnphi's recruitment and retention of members, providing membership benefits including technical assistance to members, tracking member services and capacities through nnphi's crm, and leading content development for nnphi's signature event, the annual conference. The portfolio also provides capacity-building assistance to emerging institutes (fee-for-service or grant-supported) and leads collaborative public health programs with members. Lastly, this is home to nnphi's communications team. The team manages all external and internal communications for nnphi and provides external communications support for the national network. They focus on branding, website management, project-based communications, event communications support, collaboration with network member communicators, and strategic positioning for nnphi.astly, this is home to nnphi's communications team. The team manages all external and internal communications for nnphi and provides external communications support for the national network. They focus on branding, website management, project-based communications, event communications support, collaboration with network member communicators, and strategic positioning for nnphi.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Grant-funded. 94% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 64% of its reported program spending out as grants.
The verdict
STRONG - 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 expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 80
- Transparency & Controls: 79
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 28
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 90.2%; rating input score 90
- Program expense ratio: 90.2%; rating input score 90
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 10th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 5 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 83
- Compensation committee: Pass
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
- Written employment contract: Pass
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 53.8%; rating input score 54; 12th 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; 66th 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: 0.4%; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.45; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.45; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 7.1%; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 14.6% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 13.2% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 17.6% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 7 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 90.2% of revenue deployed · 90.2% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 8 filed program accomplishments · $27.2M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $405K · 19 people listed · 5 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $3.2M reported
- Consistency: 32 of 33 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 64 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 55 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.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 54/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 35/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 13/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 33/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 35/100.