Natural Products Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
952376719
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2018
Forms available
Form 990 2018
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
8009666632
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Professional Societies, Associations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,038,929
Expenses
$3,025,962
Assets
$3,726,914
Liabilities
$2,115,949

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2018. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

20 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DANIEL FABRICANT PHD (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • DANIEL FABRICANT PHD (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND CEO): $391,320 total reported compensation
  • COREY HILMAS MD PHD (SVP SCIENTIFIC & REGULATORY AFFAIRS): $259,996 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2018. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The natural products association's mission is to advocate for the rights of consumers to have access to products that will maintain and improve health, and for the rights of retailers and suppliers to sell these products.

What it reported doing in 2018

Gmp certification: npa has always taken a leadership role in promoting quality standards and has developed proactive certification programs for that purpose. Npa was the first organization to offer a third-party gmp certification program for the manufacturing of dietary supplements and dietary ingredients. Npa established its gmp standards for dietary supplements in 1999 and updated the standard in 2000. At the time of publication, these gmp standards represented tyhe industry's best practices and served as the basis of the npa certification program. In june 2007, the fda published the final gmp regulation specific to dietary supplements (21 cfr 111). See schedule o for continuationin order to keep the npa gmp certificaiton program relevant and reflect the highest level of industry good manfacturing practices, the npa gmp standard has been revised to to include all of the fda gmp requirements of 21 cfr part 111 and retains certain requirements from the 2000 version of the npa gmp standard that exceed requirements of the fda gmps, or reflect best industry practices, and/or are necessary for the evaluation of compliance to the npa gmp standard. Npa gmp certification is awarded to companies that meet a high level of compliance to the npa gmp standard as verified through comprehensive third-party inspections of facilities and gmp-related documentation.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 84% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 35
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • Program expense ratio: Limited
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd 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: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: 0.4%; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.23; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.57; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 21.5%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 2% per year; rating input score 100; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -13.6% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: 18 of 18 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $391K · 20 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $258K reported
  • Consistency: 11 of 11 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2011 to 2018
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 36/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 50/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 8/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 21/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.