Acmp Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
954437773
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
New York, NY, USA
Phone
2126457424
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fund Raising and/or Fund Distribution

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$359,559
Expenses
$422,745
Assets
$10,705,929
Liabilities
$112,482

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • STEPHANIE GRIFFIN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • STEPHANIE GRIFFIN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $39,094 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 further the aims and purposes of acmp associated chamber music players inc., primarily through grants to educational institutions and to organizations that provide chamber activities for amateurs.

What it reported doing in 2024

Chamber music workshops grants are awarded to non-profit organizations and others that present workshops for adult amateur chamber music players worldwide. Grants are provided to subsidize coaches' salaries, to reduce registration fees for participants, and to provide scholarships. Acmp seeks to fund workshops which rekindle an enthusiasm and energy for chamber music playing; expand a player's knowledge of the chamber music repertoire; deepen insights and skill in the performance of chamber music; help players make new connections with other players.

Operating model

Revenue model
Investment-supported. 95% of the money available for current operations came from recurring investment income.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 72% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 83
  • Transparency & Controls: 49
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 44
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 80.3%; rating input score 80
  • Fundraising efficiency: $0.65 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 0%; rating input score 0; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -17.6%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 25.32; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 9.2%; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.1% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.3% per year; rating input score 100; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.3% per year; rating input score 100; 35th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 80.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $339K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $39K · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 33 of 35 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes foreign activity
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

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

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 7 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 5/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 16/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 29/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 45/100.