Afp Foundation for Philanthropy

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
521241128
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Arlington, VA, USA
Phone
7036840410
Rating
63
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,907,633
Expenses
$1,251,292
Assets
$2,340,690
Liabilities
$27,574

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LORI GUSDORF (EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT)
  • MIKE GEIGER (AFP PRESIDENT AND CFO)

Highest reported compensation

  • MIKE GEIGER (AFP PRESIDENT AND CFO): $612,194 total reported compensation
  • CHRISTOPHER AMOS (SR. DIRECTOR, BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT): $244,614 total reported compensation
  • LORI GUSDORF (EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT): $217,840 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The afp foundation shall advance philanthropic investment and impact in the non-profit sector.

What it reported doing in 2024

Inclusion and influence: this program focuses on increasing diversity and inclusion within the fundraising profession and philanthropy. The scholarship funds within the program further promote these focuses to young fundraising professionals. Grants are provided to diverse fundraising professionals to provide professional education, training, and information to advance their skills, abilities, and careers.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 78% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 55% for direct work, and 45% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - Most voting board members are independent and program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 47
  • Transparency & Controls: 56
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 68
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 37%; rating input score 37
  • Program expense ratio: 53.7%; rating input score 54
  • Fundraising efficiency: $37.56 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 22nd 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: 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: 80.7%; rating input score 81; 35th 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; 63rd 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: 34.4%; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.87; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 39.1%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 10.4% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.2% per year; rating input score 100; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1.4% per year; rating input score 100; 23rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 37% of revenue deployed · 53.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $672K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $612K · 15 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 37 of 38 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 9 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 4 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 37/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 54/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 7 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 4/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.