National Security Technology Accelerator

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
825338732
IRS 990 coverage
2019–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2018
Location
Crane, IN, USA
Phone
4089700100
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Management & Technical Assistance

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$38,245,986
Expenses
$41,791,591
Assets
$914,808,580
Liabilities
$922,322,799

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • Carl Douglas Crowe (Director, S2MARTS): $237,026 total reported compensation
  • Anthony Kestranek (S2MARTS Deputy Director): $203,335 total reported compensation
  • Megan Steele-Holdaway (Senior Contracts Manager): $156,352 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To revolutionize the government's approach to acquisition by embracing transparency, alignment, collaboration, credibility, and competition, bringing the most advanced ideas to life in half the time.

What it reported doing in 2024

NSTXL works with national security agencies to identify and define their current technology gaps. The organization then helps the government refine their problem statement in a manner that can be understood outside government circles and engages strategic partners and networks to identify potential technology solutions. Once a match is made, NSTXL continues to manage the project through development, testing, and fielding.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 95% 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

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: 89
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 62
  • Sustainability: 44
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 99.9%; rating input score 100
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd 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: 75%; rating input score 75; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Limited
    • Other executive compensation review process: Limited
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -9.3%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 21.89; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.01; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 1.4%; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 39.2% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 42.3% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 45.1% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 2 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 99.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 4 board members independent · 3 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $41.8M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $237K · 7 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $41M reported
  • Consistency: 21 of 21 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2019 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 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.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 11/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 6/100.