American Architectural Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
520847434
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2019–2019
Forms available
Form 990 2018, Form 990-EZ 2019
Location
Gaithersburg, MD, USA
Phone
2027871001
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Visual Arts Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$10,064
Expenses
$64,204
Assets
$0

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2019. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

People named in this filing

  • JOHN SYVERTSEN (CHAIR)
  • JAMES RTOLBERTIII (SECRETARY)
  • WILLIAM T KERR (TREASURER)

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 2019. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Through a diversified range of programs which use design and architecture as a catalyst for change, aaf works in the areas of community, education, stewardship and preservation, and public awareness to celebrate the power of architecture to improve lives and transform communities.

What it reported doing in 2019

Building on ten years of experience in school design, aaf launched a new educational initiative, design for learning, that will create a stronger national leadership platform for aaf and our partners. No national non- profit organization currently provides elected officials, superintendents, school boards, educators, and other civic leaders with a single place to turn for information, technical support, and inspiration when it comes to school design.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% 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. Revenue has declined or grown slowly and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 87
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 9
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 65.4%; rating input score 65

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -538%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -18.7% per year; rating input score 0; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -16.8% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 65.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $42K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 6 of 6 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 3/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 2/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.