Southern Arizona AIDS Foundation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 860864100
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Tucson, AZ, USA
- Phone
- 5206287223
- Rating
- 80
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Health
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $19,642,722
- Expenses
- $19,440,090
- Assets
- $9,406,776
- Liabilities
- $1,544,697
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
15 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Beth Frantz (Chief Executive Officer)
Highest reported compensation
- Beth Frantz (Chief Executive Officer): $220,228 total reported compensation
- Tom Rios (Chief Financial Officer): $157,894 total reported compensation
- Monique Vallery (Chief Development Officer): $138,419 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 promote health, well-being, and social justice for those living with HIV, LGBTQ+ individuals, and communities marginalized by society.
What it reported doing in 2024
HIV Care and Housing: The Care Services Department ensures that people living with HIV have access to the services they need to maintain optimal health and live as independently and safely as possible. Through our Care Services, SAAF provides case management, medical case management, housing, psychosocial support, and other support services. Of all the people served, roughly 95% are low income, with over 60% living below the federal poverty level. Due to the ongoing economic conditions and the stress of living with limited incomes, the demand for Care Services remains high.SAAF provided services to 1,479 people living with HIV/AIDS and their household members throughout Southern Arizona including Pima, Cochise, Santa Cruz, Graham, and Greenlee counties. Case Management Services: Case management provided needs assessments, the development of care and action plans, and the provision of or referral to necessary services. Case managers supported clients by linking them to medical care, behavioral health, substance abuse services, and other necessary social service programs.Support Services: Support services provided to clients include Complementary therapies, dental services (provided statewide except for Maricopa and Pinal counties), food and nutrition services (including the Food for Life program and the food pantry), Ensure nutritional drink distribution, Harvest Days, emergency meals, and an annual holiday giving project. Additionally, medication benefits management is provided for those clients enrolled through the Affordable Care Act federally facilitated marketplace (provided statewide) as well as medical benefits cost sharing assistance for those enrolled in the statewide AIDS Drug Assistance program. SAAF also provides support groups, transportation services, hygiene and cleaning supplies, and other personal support services.Housing Services: SAAF provides emergency shelter, transitional housing, and permanent supportive housing to people living with HIV. SAAF provided over 413 people (including households) with housing services to prevent homelessness. Additionally, SAAF assists clients with rent, mortgage, and utility assistance, with the goal of helping individuals sustain their housing by using the nationally recognized Housing First model approach. Housing case management services are provided to support clients in maintaining their home, referring them to other social services, and linking them to HIV medical care.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 45% for direct work, and 55% for grants.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
STRONG - 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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 82
- Transparency & Controls: 71
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 35
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 85%; rating input score 85
- Program expense ratio: 85.8%; rating input score 86
- Fundraising efficiency: $16.38 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
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: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd 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: 1%; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.48; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.16; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 5.3%; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 7.7% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 6.6% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 6.8% per year; rating input score 100; 48th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 85% of revenue deployed · 85.8% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $16.7M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $220K · 15 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $3.5M reported
- Consistency: 35 of 35 current checks pass
- Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 13 filing years from 2009 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 7 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
- 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.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 52/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 38/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 15/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 48/100.