American Studies Association
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 237083450
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2019–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2022
- Location
- Sacramento, CA, USA
- Phone
- 2025961270
- Rating
- 68
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Humanities Organizations
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,212,221
- Expenses
- $1,278,981
- Assets
- $1,562,844
- Liabilities
- $112,134
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
10 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Scott Kurashige (Executive Director)
- Mishuana Goeman (President)
- Alex Lubin (President Elect)
- Sharon Holland (Immediate Past President)
Highest reported compensation
- Scott Kurashige (Executive Director): $198,709 total reported compensation
- Catherine Griffin (Executive Dir.): $83,945 total reported compensation
- Rachel Morse (Interim Executive Dir.): $38,769 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 association is organized exclusively for educational and academic study purposes, including the promotion of meaningful dialogue about the united states across the globe by supporting scholars and scholarship committed to original research, innovative and effective teaching, critical thinking, and public discussion and debate.
What it reported doing in 2024
Printing and publication of journals to educate the public in a manner consistent with the association's exempt purpose - advancing the study of American culture.
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 98% 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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 77
- Transparency & Controls: 47
- Accountability: 82
- Sustainability: 32
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 88.6%; rating input score 89
- Program expense ratio: 83.4%; rating input score 83
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 72.7%; rating input score 73; 0th 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: 33.1%; rating input score 33; 27th 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: 5 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 56
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
- 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: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -5.5%; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.22; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.07; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 25.1%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 5.2% per year; rating input score 100; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 4.2% per year; rating input score 100; 38th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 11.3% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 88.6% of revenue deployed · 83.4% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 5 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1.1M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $199K · 10 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 27 of 30 current checks pass · 3 findings to review
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 6 filing years from 2019 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
- 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.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 33/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 23/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 49/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 10/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grants require schedule f did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 47/100.