American Academy of Family Physicians Fdn

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
446013671
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Leawood, KS, USA
Phone
9139066000
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Management & Technical Assistance

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$5,255,335
Expenses
$4,229,004
Assets
$28,348,000
Liabilities
$1,215,477

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

Leadership & pay

25 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JAY-SHEREE AKAMBASE MD (BOARD MEMBER\PRESIDENT ELECT)
  • RENEE MARKOVICH MD (BOARD MEMBER\VICE PRESIDENT)
  • TOMAS P OWENS MD (BOARD MEMBER\PRESIDENT)
  • HEATHER E PALMER MBA (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • R SHAWN MARTIN (BOARD MEMBER\EX-OFFICIO): $903,923 total reported compensation
  • HEATHER E PALMER MBA (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $368,747 total reported compensation
  • BRENDA GASTON (ASSISTANT CONTROLLER): $210,454 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 american academy of family physicians foundation advances the values of family medicine by promoting humanitarian, educational and scientific initiatives that improve the health of all people.

What it reported doing in 2024

Center for history of family medicine: established in 1992, the center for the history of family medicine (chfm) curates and houses a library of archival repository, audiovisual materials and artifacts to share the history of family medicine within the united states. The chfm serves three important roles in one, as a historical research library, archive, and museum. The chfm also serves as the official repository for the 8 organizations which comprise the "family" of family medicine. Acting as the scribe for the specialty, the center for the history of family medicine (chfm) is dedicated to serving as the collective memory as well as informing the future. In 2024, the center: 1) held the fourth annual chfm student and resident essay contest to encourage future physicians to engage with the specialty's history to direct the future, awarding grants to two projects: "medicalizing marginalization: the role of the family physicians in treating the social determinants of health "the compendium of hardknocks: a window into the history of family medicine 2) awarded the fellowship award for a research project, "lessons in family medicine from the ancient greeks 3) awarded a grant for the creation of oral history interviews focused on family medicine to a project titled "healing beyond crisis: the lasting legacy of a pandemic on the health community in an underserved population", and 4) the number of tours, reference requests, and other engagements reached 753. Https://www.aafpfoundation.org/our-programs/center-history-family-medicine.html family medicine discovers: the aafp foundation's scientific program, in partnership with aafp national research network and dartnet, focuses on building a robust family medicine research infrastructure by cultivating scholarship and engagement among community family physicians. Family medicine discovers rapid cycle scientific discovery and innovation (fmd rapsdi) program seeks practicing family physicians with little or no research experience to generate new evidence and innovative models for "what works" in real-world primary care settings. In 2024, two scholars of the fmd rapsdi program started their respective projects: 1) assessing the impact of a virtual sel-management education course on symptoms and quality of life for adults living with long covid, and 2) exploring the feasibility of using wearable fitness trackers and ai-delivered text messaging to provide self-management education and support for adults living with type 2 diabetes. Https://www.aafpfoundation.org/our-programs/scientific-initiatives.html

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 61% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - 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: 62
  • Transparency & Controls: 73
  • Accountability: 92
  • Sustainability: 75
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 73.2%; rating input score 73
  • Program expense ratio: 63.3%; rating input score 63
  • Fundraising efficiency: $2.88 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.7%; rating input score 95; 25th 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: 96%; rating input score 96; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 95.2%; rating input score 95; 25th 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: 19.5%; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.7; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.04; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.5%; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -3.7% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -0.6% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3.2% per year; rating input score 100; 25th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 73.2% of revenue deployed · 63.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 20 of 21 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $2.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $904K · 25 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $2.1M reported
  • Consistency: 35 of 36 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, executive pay, and related organizations
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2013 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 35 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 28 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 8/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 44/100.