Tampa Museum of Art Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
311650423
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Tampa, FL, USA
Phone
8134218363
Rating
64
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$10,362,022
Expenses
$1,423,526
Assets
$75,211,222
Liabilities
$524,561

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

Leadership & pay

25 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MICHAEL A TOMOR (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • CHRISTINE PHILLIPS (PRESIDENT)
  • MAUREEN COHN (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • FRANK BONSACK (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • MICHAEL A TOMOR (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $479,822 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Maintain and raise funds for the benefit of the tampa museum of art, inc.

What it reported doing in 2025

The tampa museum of art foundation (foundation) is a supporting 501(c)(3) organization for the tampa museum of art (tma), a cultural institute that adds measurable value to people's lives. The tma is a place to celebrate iconic works of art in exhibitions featuring breakthroughs in artistic directions, and we are a venue for community forums and dialogues with internationally recognized artists and scholars. The tma is also a repository of art collections for current and future generations, and we provide studio art programs, school field trips for students, and tours for adults, as well as over 16 different art education programs and workshops focused on ancient, modern, and contemporary art. Continued on schedule o.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 90% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

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 few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 35
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 98
  • Sustainability: 89
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 14.3%; rating input score 14
  • Program expense ratio: 59.4%; rating input score 59
  • Fundraising efficiency: $30.87 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 95.8%; rating input score 96; 25th 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: 86.3%; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 52.83; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 10.2%; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 30% per year; rating input score 100; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 22.1% per year; rating input score 100; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 13% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 14.3% of revenue deployed · 59.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 23 of 24 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $846K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $480K · 25 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $2.1M reported
  • Consistency: 21 of 21 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 2 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 14/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 59/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 24/100.