Washington Blade Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
273625406
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2019–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2023, Form 990-EZ 2024
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Printing, Publishing

Reported finances

Revenue
$150,127
Expenses
$110,378
Assets
$160,992
Liabilities
$1,187

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Kevin Naff (President)
  • Peter Rosenstein (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Kevin Naff (President)
  • Peter Rosenstein (Vice President)
  • Khadijah Tribble (Secretary)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

Preserve legacy of the nations first LGBT newspaper.

What it reported doing in 2024

International Reporting - The Washington Blade has been traveling the world since 2013 covering LGBT issues in areas where LGBT advocacy work and visibility remain limited. With the support of the Blade Foundation the Blade has been able to extend its reach through the funding of reporters covering countries in Central America Mexico and the Caribbean. Over 125 articles highlighting LGBT issues in these countries where LGBT advocacy work and visibility remain limited.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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 - The filed numbers largely add up and program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 36
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Sustainability: 72
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 31.8%; rating input score 32
  • Program expense ratio: 43.3%; rating input score 43

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 26.5%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.46; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.6% per year; rating input score 100; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 17.8% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 31.8% of revenue deployed · 43.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $48K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 7 of 7 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2019 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 32/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 43/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 44/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.