Association of Research Institutes in Art History

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
951114004
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2016–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2015, Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2015
Location
Worcester, MA, USA
Phone
5084712119
Rating
64
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Arts, Cultural Organizations - Multipurpose

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$16,500
Expenses
$6,320
Assets
$29,048

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

People named in this filing

  • ERICA WALL (DIRECTOR)
  • LUIS VERGAS-SANTIAGO (DIRECTOR)
  • NANCY UM (DIRECTOR)

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

To promote scholarship by institutes of advanced research in the history of art and related disciplines; to provide general information about the scholarly activities of its member institutes; and to develop cooperative projects and programs. It currently consists of twenty-four member institutions.

What it reported doing in 2025

Granting residential fellowships of varying duration to senior and junior scholars in the history of art and related disciplines.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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 revenue comfortably covers expenses. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 55
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 74
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 34%; rating input score 34
  • Program expense ratio: 88.7%; rating input score 89

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 61.7%; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.6; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -26.4% per year; rating input score 0; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -27.4% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -24.3% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 34% of revenue deployed · 88.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $6K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 6 of 6 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2016 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 34/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.