International Association of Pastel Soci
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 841292079
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2011–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2020
- Location
- Kingston, MA, USA
- Phone
- 7815634045
- Rating
- 62
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $237,182
- Expenses
- $173,380
- Assets
- $542,002
- Liabilities
- $10,939
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
10 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- RICHARD MCKINLEY (PRESIDENT)
- SHIRLEY ANDERSON (TREASURER/ VICE PRESIDENT)
- CAROL HALL (2ND VICE PRESIDENT)
- SUSAN WEBER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- SUSAN WEBER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $82,180 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 goal of the association is to promote the appreciation and desirability of the pastel medium as a fine art medium by the general public, art museums and galleries, collectors, art publishers, and artists, the association is a membership organization which supports its member pastel art societies, whose members are individual pastel artists.
What it reported doing in 2025
International association of pastel societies (iaps) began preparing for the 2026 int'l convention in albuquerque, New Mexico to achieve its primary purpose. Iaps organizes conventions to get together members of the pastel art societies to achieve the following objectives: to bring pastel artists together as one large representation. Iaps does not provide individual membership. Individuals, who belong to an iaps member society, receive all the benefits of membership. To assist artists in their individual aspirations to become better artists by educational and informative seminars, demonstrations and product information to expand the artist's knowledge. To help each pastel society in a network of information that will be of value to all members. This is accomplished by exchanging ideas and information during periodic virtual forums.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 89% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- 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 most voting board members are independent. 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: 26
- Transparency & Controls: 90
- Accountability: 90
- Sustainability: 62
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 25%; rating input score 25
- Program expense ratio: 35.2%; rating input score 35
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
- 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: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 26.9%; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.13; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 47.4%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -4.2% per year; rating input score 0; 18th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 3.5% per year; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 4.3% per year; rating input score 100; 41st percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 25% of revenue deployed · 35.2% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $61K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $82K · 10 people listed
- Consistency: 23 of 23 current checks pass
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules
- Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
- 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 25/100.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 35/100.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 4/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 34/100.