American Friends of the Leipzig Bach-Archive Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 275558775
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2025–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2024
- Location
- Yarmouth Port, MA, USA
- Rating
- 91
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Museum, Museum Activities
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $60,272
- Expenses
- $90,234
- Assets
- $35,672
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
7 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Dr Mary Greer (President)
People named in this filing
- Dr Mary Greer (President)
- Joan Hill (Treasurer)
- Professor Robert Levin (Boardmember)
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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The primary purpose of AFLBA is to give some financial support to the Bach-Archiv. #1. programming and payment of guest artists and speakers for the annual Bachfest . #2. AFLBA supports the Bach Library by supporting an endowment fund to ensure the future of its library and museum collections. AFLFAs contributions help with the acquisition of rare Bach documents manuscripts and musical transcriptions and other Bach rarities. #3. AFLBA also supports stipends for research assistants within the Bach Archiv. #4. AFLBAs board of directors also offers advice research and intellectual support which value is inestimable. #5. AFLBA purchase of BachMagazin for its members and contributors. AFLBAs support does not support 1 person but thousands of people who are indebted to JS Bach.
What it reported doing in 2025
Sashi Ayyangar Stipend: support pianist in research of cantatas composed by Bachs predecessors
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 97% of its reported program spending out as grants.
The verdict
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 100
- Transparency & Controls: 100
- Sustainability: 20
- Growth: NotEnoughData
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 99.7%; rating input score 100
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -49.7%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.4; rating input score 27; 27th 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: Limited
- Asset growth: Limited
Details
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 99.7% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 4 filed program accomplishments · $90K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
- Consistency: 7 of 7 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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 12/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 27/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.