American Association of Biological Anthropologists Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
236395179
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Herndon, VA, USA
Phone
7037901745
Rating
63
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,019,585
Expenses
$816,068
Assets
$6,344,330
Liabilities
$290,928

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ANNE STONE (PRESIDENT)
  • LESLEA HLUSKO (PAST PRESIDENT)
  • AMY RECTOR (VICE PRESIDENT AND PROGRAM CHAIR)

People named in this filing

  • ANNE STONE (PRESIDENT)
  • LESLEA HLUSKO (PAST PRESIDENT)
  • AMY RECTOR (VICE PRESIDENT AND PROGRAM CHAIR)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The purpose of aaba is the advancement of the science of biological anthropology.

What it reported doing in 2025

An annual meeting is held for interested members and associates during which selected members and/or invited speakers make formal presentations related to biological anthropology studies.members of the aaba receive publications and mailings regarding current articles, studies and developments in the realm of biological anthropology and notifications announcing aaba events and member services.aaba bestows awards to recognize and honor distinguished senior members, individuals who have demonstrated a history of excellence in service to the aaba, as well as other awards to encourage and further the mission of the aaba.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 83% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 47
  • Transparency & Controls: 77
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 74
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 42.5%; rating input score 43
  • Program expense ratio: 70.4%; rating input score 70
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: Limited
    • Conducts field audits: Limited
    • May suspend future funding: Limited
    • Requires financial reports: Limited
    • Conducts site visits: Limited
    • Requires grant agreements: Limited
    • May require repayment: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 78th 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 20%; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 7.77; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.05; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -1.3% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.6% per year; rating input score 100; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.3% per year; rating input score 100; 45th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 42.5% of revenue deployed · 70.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $574K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 14 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $150K reported
  • Consistency: 30 of 30 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and grants
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 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 43/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 44/100.