American Medical Informatics Association
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 521615853
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2015–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
- Location
- Washington, DC, USA
- Phone
- 3016571291
- Rating
- 73
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $9,126,107
- Expenses
- $7,488,886
- Assets
- $11,085,921
- Liabilities
- $1,634,717
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
24 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- TANYA TOLPEGIN (CEO (TERM FEB 2024))
- AMANDA HANOVA (CEO (AS OF NOV 2024))
Highest reported compensation
- AMANDA HANOVA (CEO (AS OF NOV 2024)): $273,155 total reported compensation
- TANYA TOLPEGIN (CEO (TERM FEB 2024)): $244,437 total reported compensation
- JEFFREY WILLIAMSON (SVP EDUCATION & INTERPROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES): $215,025 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
A community committed to the vision of a world where informatics transforms people's care.
What it reported doing in 2024
Educational programs - there are four core educational programs: 10x10, cibrc, core content and ahic:1. 10x10 - a program to train health care professionals in appliedhealth and biomedical informatics.2. Cibrc - amia's clinical informatics board review course (cibrc)provides american board of medical specialties (abms) board-certifiedphysicians with the educational resources to assist them in becomingcertified in the subspecialty of clinical informatics.3. Ahic - advanced health informatics certification (ahic) isdevelopment of a pathway to certification for individuals not eligiblefor the medical subspecialty certification.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 88% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 99% 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 program spending has declined or grown slowly.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 49
- Transparency & Controls: 91
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 57
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 51.8%; rating input score 52
- Program expense ratio: 60.1%; rating input score 60
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 5 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 83
- Compensation committee: Pass
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
- Written employment contract: Pass
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd 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: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 17.9%; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.48; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.15; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 19%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -3.5% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 2.5% per year; rating input score 100; 24th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 6.5% per year; rating input score 100; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 51.8% of revenue deployed · 60.1% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 16 of 16 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $4.5M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $273K · 24 people listed · 5 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $126K reported
- Consistency: 33 of 33 current checks pass
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 10 filing years from 2015 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 7 filed money-flow records
- 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.
- Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 52/100.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 51/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 13/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 51/100.