Association of Family Medicine Residency Directors

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
431559340
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-T 2025
Location
Leawood, KS, USA
Phone
9139066000
Rating
82
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,730,016
Expenses
$1,936,884
Assets
$8,346,861
Liabilities
$1,023,008

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DONALD RAJ WOOLEVER MD (PRESIDENT)
  • GRACE CHEN YU MD (PRESIDENT ELECT)
  • SARAH COLE DO (PAST PRESIDENT)
  • LISA OCHS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • NEIL ROBERTSON (DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • LISA OCHS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $195,043 total reported compensation
  • NEIL ROBERTSON (DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $118,586 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 association of family medicine residency directors inspires and empowers family medicine residency program directors to achieve excellence in family medicine residency training.

What it reported doing in 2025

The organization engages in several special projects including the afmrd website (www.afmrd.org) and the pd toolbox project. These projects provide family medicine residency programs with numerous tools to enhance education. The organization is developing a national curriculum for family medicine residency programs.the organization provides just-in-time opportunities for leadership training (jolt). This program is a virtual training program for non-program director members in family medicine gme who want to enhance and develop their leadership skills.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 76% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 68% for direct work, and 32% for 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 reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 80
  • Transparency & Controls: 79
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 36
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 72.5%; rating input score 72
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 99.7%; rating input score 100; 54th 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 8 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: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -12%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.31; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.12; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 16.2%; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6.5% per year; rating input score 100; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.4% per year; rating input score 100; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.1% per year; rating input score 100; 31st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 72.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $1.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $195K · 15 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $203K reported
  • Consistency: 27 of 27 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 3 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.

  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 11/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 22/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 32/100.