American Supporters of Royal Academy of Dramatic Art
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 571204770
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2010–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2022
- Location
- New York City, NY, USA
- Phone
- 6469069867
- Rating
- 36
- Verdict
- REVIEW
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Fund Raising and/or Fund Distribution
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $105,100
- Expenses
- $127,415
- Assets
- $20,464
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
5 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Peter Francis James (President)
- Tara Loewenstern (Vice-President)
People named in this filing
- Peter Francis James (President)
- Tara Loewenstern (Vice-President)
- Richard Rivas (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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Scholarships and educational grants
What it reported doing in 2025
Granted $125,000 to the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art (RADA), London, UK, in a series of three grants made on October 29, 2025, February 18, 2026, and March 10, 2026. The Board of Directors of American Supporters of the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art (ASRADA) independently evaluated and approved these grants in accordance with the organization's grantmaking criteria. Grants were made from unrestricted donations and funds were restricted for educational purposes under IRC Section 170(c)(2)(B), specifically for student training, prospective student engagement, and sustaining RADA's educational programs. Grant agreements expressly provide that ASRADA is not a conduit and that RADA bears full responsibility for the use of funds in accordance with the stated charitable purpose. RADA has provided documentation confirming funds were used as intended.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.
The verdict
REVIEW - The filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 0
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 24
- Growth: 40
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
- Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -21.2%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.16; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -18.1% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 8.8% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -3.2% per year; rating input score 0; 18th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
- Consistency: 8 of 9 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 2 filed schedules
- Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part III transfer expenses within program total did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 6/100.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 16/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.