Fine Arts Museums Foundation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 946096509
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
- Location
- San Francisco, CA, USA
- Phone
- 4157508902
- Rating
- 79
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Single Organization Support
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $26,865,830
- Expenses
- $21,197,709
- Assets
- $329,135,828
- Liabilities
- $2,559,481
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
14 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- LORNA F MEYER (PRESIDENT)
- GEORGE HECKSHER (VICE PRESIDENT)
Highest reported compensation
- THOMAS CAMPBELL (DIRECTOR OF MUSEUMS): $1,208,885 total reported compensation
- JASON SEIFER (FISCAL OFFICER): $428,191 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 specific and primary purposes for which this foundation is formed are the charitable and educational purposes of soliciting, receiving, disbursing and managing funds and property for the embellishment, advancement, administration and enlargement of the fine arts museums of san francisco (famsf). These activities include purchasing works of art, holding those works of art, and lending or donating them to the fine arts museums of san francisco.
What it reported doing in 2024
The fine arts museums foundation (famf) and cofam privately raised funds and rebuilt the deyoung museum, which was gifted to the city of san francisco upon its completion in 2005. These expenses include the amortization of the beneficial interest in the deyoung as well as the cost of servicing related bonds. The new deyoung has permitted expanded and improved service to the museum's public by increasing the amount of art on view, the expansion of the educational department and the increased exhibition space.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 60% for direct work, and 40% for grants.
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 reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 84
- Transparency & Controls: 60
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 88
- Growth: 80
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 95.9%; rating input score 96
- Program expense ratio: 91.1%; rating input score 91
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd 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: Scored; rating input score 0
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd 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; 66th 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: 21.1%; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 15.53; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0.6%; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 6.5% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 1.8% per year; rating input score 100; 16th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -2.9% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 95.9% of revenue deployed · 91.1% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $19.3M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $1.2M · 14 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $490K reported
- Consistency: 19 of 19 current checks pass
- Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
- 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.