Skip to content
National Alliance of State and Territorial AIDS Directorsdba Nastad at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

National Alliance of State and Territorial AIDS Directorsdba Nastad

Nastad's mission is to advance the health and dignity of people living with and impacted by hiv/aids, viral hepatitis, and intersecting epidemics by strengthening governmental public health and leveraging community partnerships.

$8.9M
Granted FY2024still arriving
97
Grants FY2024still arriving
33
States reached
$422k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2024.

Health$26MHuman Services$1.4MCommunity Improvement$1.3MEducation$753kCivil Rights$348kEmployment$213kReligion$200kHousing & Shelter$130kOther$0
02FY2024 · 97 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $10k–50k21 grants · $729k
  • $50k–250k74 grants · $7.4M
  • $250k+2 grants · $833k
$75,000
Median grant
33
States reached
$16M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
THE REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA$421,828
ACADEMYHEALTH$411,433
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY$237,238
UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI$218,192
UNIVERSITY MARYLAND BALTIMORE COUNTY$163,019
INDIANA RECOVERY ALLIANCE$160,000
RIVER VALLEY ORGANIZING$150,000
POWER4STL$150,000
NEXT HARM REDUCTION$150,000
WECARETN$150,000
FLORIDA HARM REDUCTION COLLECTIVE INC$150,000
BLUE MOUNTAIN HEART TO HEART$148,008
CONFLUENCE HRH413$135,000
IOWA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH$131,696
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRON$131,061
02The need
03

Does the money reach high-need areas?

Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, against the area’s typical level.

show:

Its human-services grants (FY22–24, $2.3M) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 52% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.

area typical 11%ALBUQUERQUE HEALTH CARE FOR THE HOMELESS: $33k → 14%FYREBIRD RECOVERY: $100k → 13%REBEL RECOVERY FLORIDA INC: $125k → 11%FLORIDA HARM REDUCTION COLLECTIVE INC: $150k → 12%COMMUNITY OUTREACH THROUGH RADICAL EMPOWE: $43k → 15%CONNECTICUT HARM REDUCTION ALLIANCE INC: $165k → 11%PROJECT WEBER RENEW: $75k → 14%CONFLUENCE HRH413: $135k → 9%FYREBIRD RECOVERY: $50k → 13%REBEL RECOVERY FLORIDA INC: $50k → 11%FLORIDA HARM REDUCTION COLLECTIVE INC: $75k → 12%CONNECTICUT HARM REDUCTION ALLIANCE INC: $127k → 11%PROJECT WEBER RENEW: $38k → 14%STOP HARM ON TULSA STREETS: $100k → 9%CONNECTICUT HARM REDUCTION ALLIANCE INC: $57k → 11%POSITIVELY LIVING: $75k → 12%TRYSTEREO HARM REDUCTION COLLECTIVE: $75k → 9%POSITIVELY LIVING: $38k → 12%UNITED TERRITORIES OF PACIFIC ISLANDERS A: $100k → 9%CONFLUENCE HRH413: $63k → 9%UNITED TERRITORIES OF PACIFIC ISLANDERS A: $50k → 9%CONFLUENCE HRKC: $50k → 9%STOP HARM ON TULSA STREETS: $50k → 9%CONFLUENCE HRKC: $50k → 9%THE PUERTO RICO PROJECT: $50k → 14%TRYSTEREO HARM REDUCTION COLLECTIVE: $38k → 9%SOUTHERN WEST VIRGINIA HARM REDUCTION: $25k → 9%SOUTHERN WEST VIRGINIA HARM REDUCTION: $25k → 9%THE PUERTO RICO PROJECT: $100k → 14%HIPS: $108k → 14%HIPS: $86k → 14%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount
How this is measured
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty line in the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP.

Which US states its grants reach

ME
VT
WA
ID
MT
MN
IL
MI
NY
MA
OR
IA
IN
OH
PA
CT
RI
CA
UT
CO
MO
WV
VA
MD
AZ
NM
TN
NC
SC
DC
OK
LA
AL
GA
FL
How this is measured
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are delivered. Need from public data (U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA), shown as context about the area, never attributed to the funder’s giving.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

98%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$30M · 91 repeat orgs$722k to everyone else

91 repeat relationships: 77 still active in FY2024, 14 since wound down; 15 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

91
2

Total granted

$30M
$42k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+38%
+489%

Still filing today

78%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 92% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $680k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
HealthHuman ServicesEducationPhilanthropyCommunity ImprovementCivil RightsOther
How this is measured
First-time means a grantee’s first year in the filing window; renewed means funded in an earlier year too. The renewed share climbs naturally as a portfolio matures, so the signal is a year that bucks it (a wave of new grantees). The earliest year is left-censored: relationships that predate the data read as new. Theme is the grantee’s IRS cause.

Backed again, and grew

  • A
    ACADEMYHEALTH
    4× · 2021–2024 · $1.1M · revenue +47%
  • BM
    Blue Mountain Heart to Heart
    3× · 2022–2024 · $663k · revenue +39%
  • Northwestern University
    4× · 2019–2022 · $631k · revenue +34%

Funded once

  • JSI RESEARCH & TRAINING INSTITUTE INCgraduated
    one grant, 2021 · $32k · revenue +41%
  • MH
    Mental Health Coalition Incgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $10k · revenue +489%
How this is measured

Repeat means funded in two or more distinct years. Growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Its field

Closest unfunded matches

The nonprofits that most resemble its grantees but are not funded by it, scored along the direction from the rest of the field toward the portfolio. A resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.

1
Harm Reduction Services Inc

To increase access to health care, empower people to protect themselves, and educate each other to reduce harm in our communities.

Civil Rights
2
Bexar Area Harm Reduction Coalition

To provide harm reduction without judgement to reduce the negative consequences of drug use and promote wellness.

Health
3
Northern Nevada Hiv Outpatient Program Education and Services

Northern Nevada Hopes provides affordable, high-quality, medical, behavioral health, and support services for all. We are dedicated to building a healthier community by providing coordinated care and support for individuals and family…

Health
4
Carolinas Care Partnership

To seek justice through health and housing.

Health
5
Humanistic Alternatives to Addiction Research & Treatment Inc

Haart is a non-profit organization dedicated to serving the community by reducing the harmful effects of opiate and opioid abuse and dependence, and opiate combined with poly-substance abuse, on individuals and their families. haart's…

Health
6
Lancaster Harm Reduction Project Inc
Health
7
Aids Service Center of Lower Manhattan Inc

Aids service center of lower manhattan, inc., d/b/a alliance for positive change ("alliance") is a not-for-profit community organization founded in 1990 with a central mission of helping low-income new yorkers living with hiv and other…

Health
8
Northern Valley Harm Reduction Coalition

Northern Valley Harm Reduction Coalition is a 501c3 Non-Profit and Physician Lead Harm Reduction Program. Our program provides life saving Naloxone, Overdose Reversal Training, Safe Use Supplies, Syringe Disposal, HIV/HCV Testing, Drug…

Education
9
Hawaii Health & Harm Reduction Center

Hhhrc serves hawai'i communities by reducing the harm and fighting the stigma of hiv, hepatitis, homelessness, substance use, mental illness, and poverty in our community. hhhrc focuses our efforts on those disproportionately affected by…

Health
10
Alianza of New Mexico

Alianza's mission is to empower hard-to-reach, vulnerable, and underserved populations through education and supportive services aimed at working with everyone we serve to achieve better outcomes and higher quality of life.

Human Services
11
The Twin City Harm Reduction Collective

The twin city harm reduction collective seeks to improve the health and lives and advocate for the rights of people who use drugs in winston-salem, north carolina and surrounding areas.

Human Services
12
Harm Reduction Coalition of San Diego - Hrcsd On Point Inc

To spread awareness of the importance of harm reduction and to reduce stigma by educating,supporting,networking and providing harm-reduction services.

Human Services
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is National Harm Reduction Coalition; the most unlike its peers is River Valley Organizing. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
04the grantee network

91 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.

Each grant beside the grantee’s revenue from every source, year by year.

How this is measured

Counted here: distinct organizations funded across 2017 to 2026, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 91 of the 108 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

8
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
24
Early backer (in before they grew)
87/91
Grantees still filing
65/91
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO: $1,165,326 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCOICF MACRO INC: $1,011,000 · OtherICF MACRO INCLOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH: $852,344 · OtherLOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHBlue Mountain Heart to Heart: $662,509 · OtherBlue Mountain Heart to HeartHoward Brown Health Center: $589,101 · OtherHoward Brown Health CenterNORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES: $518,933 · OtherWestern North Carolina AIDS Project Inc: $477,028 · OtherSOUTHERN AIDS COALITION: $366,936 · Other+33 more: $5,145,312 · Other+33 moreAIDS UNITED: $6,768,120 · EducationAIDS UNITEDUniversity of Miami: $615,885 · EducationUniversity of MiamiGEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY: $453,550 · EducationHEPATITUS EDUCATION PROJECT: $290,675 · Education+3 more: $412,500 · EducationACADEMYHEALTH: $1,088,175 · HealthACADEMYHEALTHNATIONAL COALITION OF STD DIRECTORS: $436,310 · HealthNATIONAL COALITION OF STD …Harm Reduction Michigan: $387,499 · HealthHarm Reduction MichiganIOWA HARM REDUCTION COALITION: $352,500 · HealthVirginia Harm Reduction Coalition: $351,544 · HealthASSOCIATION OF STATE AND TERRITORIAL HEALTH OFFICIALS: $316,903 · HealthNATIONAL HARM REDUCTION COALITION: $249,549 · Health+35 more: $3,913,007 · Health+35 morePOINTS OF DISTRIBUTION: $610,000 · Human ServicesPOINTS OF…CONNECTICUT HARM REDUCTION ALLIANCE INC: $348,980 · Human ServicesCONNECTIC…Wecaretn: $225,000 · Human ServicesWecaretnFLORIDA HARM REDUCTION COLLECTIVE INC: $225,000 · Human ServicesFLORIDA H…HIPS: $193,696 · Human ServicesHIPSRebel Recovery Florida Inc: $175,000 · Human ServicesRebel Rec…FYREBIRD RECOVERY: $150,000 · Human ServicesFYREBIRD …UNITED TERRITORIES OF PACIFIC ISLANDERS WASHINGTON-UTOPIA WA: $150,000 · Human ServicesUNITED TE…PUERTO RICO PROJECT: $150,000 · Human ServicesPUERTO RI…People's Harm Reduction Alliance: $112,500 · Human ServicesPROJECT WEBERRENEW: $112,500 · Human ServicesPOSITIVELY LIVING: $112,500 · Human Services+2 more: $75,000 · Human ServicesNorthwestern University: $630,742 · Recreation & SportsHOUSING WORKS INC: $164,425 · Community ImprovementBLACKLIDGE COMMUNITY COLLECTIVE: $150,000 · Community ImprovementMEN & WOMEN IN PRISON MINISTRIES: $232,420 · Religion
Other$10,788,489Education$8,540,730Health$7,095,487Human Services$2,640,176Recreation & Sports$630,742Community Improvement$314,425Religion$232,420

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetAIDS UNITED: $6,768,120 over 6y, 22% of budgetACADEMYHEALTH: $1,088,175 over 4y, 2.9% of budgetBlue Mountain Heart to Heart: $662,509 over 3y, 9.5% of budgetNorthwestern University: $630,742 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetUniversity of Miami: $615,885 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetPOINTS OF DISTRIBUTION: $610,000 over 2y, 13% of budgetHoward Brown Health Center: $589,101 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetWestern North Carolina AIDS Project Inc: $477,028 over 5y, 5.3% of budgetGEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY: $453,550 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetNATIONAL COALITION OF STD DIRECTORS: $436,310 over 8y, 3.7% of budgetHarm Reduction Michigan: $387,499 over 3y, 19% of budgetSOUTHERN AIDS COALITION: $366,936 over 6y, 7.7% of budgetIOWA HARM REDUCTION COALITION: $352,500 over 5y, 56% of budgetVirginia Harm Reduction Coalition: $351,544 over 5y, 3.2% of budgetCONNECTICUT HARM REDUCTION ALLIANCE INC: $348,980 over 3y, 6.2% of budgetMISSOULA AIDS FUNDS INC DBA OPEN AID ALLIANCE: $348,000 over 3y, 18% of budgetASSOCIATION OF STATE AND TERRITORIAL HEALTH OFFICIALS: $316,903 over 3y, 0.3% of budgetCOUNCIL OF STATE AND TERRITORIAL EPIDEMIOLOGISTS INC: $309,969 over 4y, 0.3% of budgetHEPATITUS EDUCATION PROJECT: $290,675 over 3y, 4.9% of budgetNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTY AND CITY HEALTH OFFICALS: $257,348 over 4y, 0.2% of budgetNATIONAL HARM REDUCTION COALITION: $249,549 over 6y, 1.2% of budgetIndiana Recovery Alliance Inc: $235,000 over 2y, 24% of budgetMEN & WOMEN IN PRISON MINISTRIES: $232,420 over 3y, 7.6% of budgetNEXT HARM REDUCTION INC: $225,000 over 2y, 4.8% of budgetWecaretn: $225,000 over 2y, 26% of budgetPOWER4STL: $225,000 over 2y, 4.0% of budgetFLORIDA HARM REDUCTION COLLECTIVE INC: $225,000 over 2y, 13% of budgetUrban Coalition for HIVAIDS Prevention Services: $199,778 over 3y, 11% of budgetHIPS: $193,696 over 2y, 2.8% of budgetRebel Recovery Florida Inc: $175,000 over 2y, 3.5% of budgetVENICE FAMILY CLINIC: $164,999 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetHOUSING WORKS INC: $164,425 over 3y, 0.4% of budgetTennessee Recovery Alliance: $160,000 over 2y, 77% of budgetINICIATIVA COMUNITARIA DE INVESTIGACION INC: $160,000 over 2y, 1.8% of budgetINDIGENOUS PEOPLES TASK FORCE: $159,684 over 3y, 4.7% of budgetPartnership to End AIDS Status Inc: $150,000 over 2y, 13% of budgetCAPITOL AREA REENTRY PROGRAM INC: $150,000 over 2y, 17% of budgetMILAN PUSKAR HEALTH RIGHT INC: $150,000 over 2y, 3.2% of budgetCORPORACION EL PUNTO EN LA MONTANA: $150,000 over 2y, 24% of budgetFYREBIRD RECOVERY: $150,000 over 2y, 33% of budgetNC Survivors Union Inc: $150,000 over 2y, 7.6% of budgetUNITED TERRITORIES OF PACIFIC ISLANDERS WASHINGTON-UTOPIA WA: $150,000 over 2y, 2.2% of budgetVERMONT CARES: $150,000 over 2y, 6.5% of budgetMaine Access Points: $150,000 over 2y, 5.3% of budgetStabbin Wagon: $150,000 over 2y, 12% of budgetCenter for Prevention Services: $150,000 over 2y, 3.4% of budgetRURAL AIDS ACTION NETWORK: $150,000 over 2y, 5.4% of budgetMEHARRY MEDICAL COLLEGE: $150,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budget
Grantee by grantee: a decade per organization, before and after funding

A decade per grantee: revenue shaded, grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.

  • Who funds AIDS UNITED ↗
  • Who funds ACADEMYHEALTH ↗
  • Who funds Blue Mountain Heart to Heart ↗
  • Who funds Northwestern University ↗
  • Who funds University of Miami ↗
  • Who funds POINTS OF DISTRIBUTION ↗
  • Who funds Howard Brown Health Center ↗
  • Who funds Western North Carolina AIDS Project Inc ↗
  • Who funds GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY ↗
  • Who funds NATIONAL COALITION OF STD DIRECTORS ↗
  • Who funds Harm Reduction Michigan ↗
  • Who funds SOUTHERN AIDS COALITION ↗
  • Who funds IOWA HARM REDUCTION COALITION ↗
  • Who funds Virginia Harm Reduction Coalition ↗
  • Who funds CONNECTICUT HARM REDUCTION ALLIANCE INC ↗
  • Who funds MISSOULA AIDS FUNDS INC DBA OPEN AID ALLIANCE ↗
  • Who funds ASSOCIATION OF STATE AND TERRITORIAL HEALTH OFFICIALS ↗
  • Who funds COUNCIL OF STATE AND TERRITORIAL EPIDEMIOLOGISTS INC ↗
  • Who funds HEPATITUS EDUCATION PROJECT ↗
  • Who funds NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTY AND CITY HEALTH OFFICALS ↗
  • Who funds NATIONAL HARM REDUCTION COALITION ↗
  • Who funds Indiana Recovery Alliance Inc ↗
  • Who funds MEN & WOMEN IN PRISON MINISTRIES ↗
  • Who funds NEXT HARM REDUCTION INC ↗
  • Who funds Wecaretn ↗
  • Who funds POWER4STL ↗
  • Who funds FLORIDA HARM REDUCTION COLLECTIVE INC ↗
  • Who funds Urban Coalition for HIVAIDS Prevention Services ↗
  • Who funds HIPS ↗
  • Who funds Rebel Recovery Florida Inc ↗

Co-funders

Grantmakers whose grantees overlap with this funder’s far more than size alone predicts. Closer means stronger alignment; arcs show where they also fund each other. Here they form a tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

AIDS UnitedNational Harm Reducti…Broadway Caresequity …Elton John AIDS Found…Direct ReliefThe Chicago Community…Vital Strategies IncEmory UniversityFoundation to Promote…National Foundation f…Drug Policy AllianceAssociation of State …
AIDS UnitedDC74.5× affinity35 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: AIDS United · National Harm Reduction Coalition · Broadway Caresequity Fights AIDS Inc · Elton John AIDS Foundation Inc · Direct Relief · The Chicago Community Trust · Vital Strategies Inc · Emory University · Foundation to Promote Open Society · National Foundation for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Inc · Drug Policy Alliance · Association of State and Territorial Health Officials

How this is measured
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. Overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization National Alliance of State and Territorial AIDS Directorsdba Nastad funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from National Alliance of State and Territorial AIDS Directorsdba Nastad. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 20%6%23%51%90%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 43%
  • Stabbin Wagon: 91% of income from government
  • Community Outreach Through Radical Empowerment: 70% of income from government
  • Jsi Research & Training Institute Inc: 69% of income from government
  • Connecticut Harm Reduction Alliance Inc: 43% of income from government
  • Johns Hopkins University: 12% of income from government
  • Rebel Recovery Florida Inc: 8% of income from government
  • University of Miami: 5% of income from government
  • Health Care for the Homeless Inc: 2% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
2get no government money at all
45report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
3rely on government for over half their income
typical government reliance, FY20–25
How this is measured
Government income is each org’s traced federal awards (USASpending grants and contracts) plus state payments (open checkbooks) as a share of its total revenue (IRS Form 990); the self-reported government-grant line (990 line 1e) is carried for cross-check: a grantee that reports government grants we could not trace to a source is left off the chart rather than shown as receiving none. An association, not a claim that a grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first, a floor rather than a census; state records exist for 9 states, so a grantee outside them shows no state figure (dimmed) rather than a false zero. Federal award amounts are obligations, which can span years, so a single-year share is indicative. 990 filings lag 12 to 24 months.

On method. Every financial figure here is read from IRS e-file XML, the funder’s own 990/990-PF, and from the multi-year returns of the 108 grantees we resolved, each linked to its source. Grantee outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III), read as association with funding, never as caused by it. Low-confidence name matches are suppressed rather than guessed. How we build these →

How this is measured
Each figure carries one of six labels. Filed is what the funder reported on its return. Official is another government record about an organization, such as a federal award or a charity register, joined by name where no shared identifier exists. Resolved is an identity we worked out where the filing named a recipient without an EIN, kept only above a measured confidence threshold. Computed is arithmetic over those, like themes, portfolio clusters and co-funder strength. Context is a statistic about a place rather than about an organization, which is what the need overlay is: it describes the area a grantee’s address sits in, not where its work lands. Inferred is drawn by a model from text, like the partnerships read out of public news and organization websites. Each is labeled where it appears.

Generated from the IRS Form 990 e-file return for fiscal year 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on National Alliance of State and Territorial AIDS Directorsdba Nastad’s filings →

More from the funding graph

The unnamed billions
grants reported with no recipient in the public record
The regranting layer
51% of grant dollars land in the regranting layer
The DAF merry-go-round
$9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
The endowment market
who holds foundation money, and what just moved
The camps
funders cluster by geography, not ideology
By state
where grant money is based, and what stays home