Ascap Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
510181769
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
New York, NY, USA
Phone
2126216063
Rating
64
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Performing Arts Organizations

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,284,932
Expenses
$1,376,076
Assets
$17,528,884
Liabilities
$102,929

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

Leadership & pay

22 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Paul Williams (President)
  • Irwin Robinson (Vice President)
  • Nicole George-Middleton (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Joan Hill (Sr. Director of Finance and Administration): $211,137 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The ASCAP Foundation is dedicated to nurturing the music talent of tomorrow, preserving the legacy of the past and sustaining the creative incentive for today's music creators through a variety of educational, professional and humanitarian programs and activities that serve the entire music community.

What it reported doing in 2025

MUSIC EDUCATION AND COMMUNITY OURTREACH: The ASCAP Foundation is dedicated to nurturing the music talent of tomorrow by developing and supporting educational programs that provide effective learning opportunities consistent with our mission to students of all ages. The ASCAP Foundation has provided funding to support 17 Music Education and / or Development programs throughout the year with the goal of enhancing and promoting music education and providing the community with access to music and its history. These 17 programs include 10 that received $5,000 or more in funding and 7 programs that received less $5,000.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 68% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 49% for direct work, and 51% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most filed governance safeguards are in place. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 55
  • Transparency & Controls: 66
  • Accountability: 63
  • Sustainability: 89
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 49.7%; rating input score 50
  • Program expense ratio: 72.3%; rating input score 72
  • Fundraising efficiency: $7.57 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 21st 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: 84.2%; rating input score 84; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 45%; rating input score 45; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 58.1%; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 12.74; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 1.7%; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.8% per year; rating input score 100; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 13.1% per year; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 9% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 49.7% of revenue deployed · 72.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 20 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $995K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $211K · 22 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 46 of 47 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2020 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 10 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 11 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 50/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 45/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 26/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.