The Aamc Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
800083168
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2015
Location
New York, NY, USA
Phone
6466837554
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Arts Education

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$911,157
Expenses
$1,148,221
Assets
$394,806
Liabilities
$35,406

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

Leadership & pay

22 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CHRISTINA YANG (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • MICHELLE JACQUES (PRESIDENT)
  • LYNDA HARTIGAN (VICE PRESIDENT - GOVERNANCE & NOMINATING)
  • TULIZA FLEMING (VICE PRESIDENT - OUTREACH)
  • JULIET SORCE (VICE PRESIDENT - ADVOCACY)
  • LENZ EMILY (VICE PRESIDENT- FUNDRAISING)

Highest reported compensation

  • CHRISTINA YANG (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $98,959 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 aamc foundation was formed to heighten public understanding of the curators role through lectures, symposia, and published materials and to award grants to curators to improve their ability to serve the public.

What it reported doing in 2025

Professional alliance for curators of color (pacc) - pacc is a multifaceted initiative designed to support and accelerate a curators early career development. Founded in 2021, the program offers training sessions, workshops and the oversight of a curatorial advisor, as well as support through a professional network including a pairing with a senior curatorial mentor, a peer cohort, and alumni community.

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 75% for direct work, and 25% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 57
  • Transparency & Controls: 75
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 16
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 68%; rating input score 68
  • Program expense ratio: 54%; rating input score 54
  • Fundraising efficiency: $3.48 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Fail
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 78th 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: 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: Fail
    • 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: -26%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.34; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.09; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 8.6%; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.6% per year; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -2.1% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -10% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 68% of revenue deployed · 54% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 20 of 20 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $620K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $99K · 22 people listed
  • Consistency: 37 of 37 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and grants
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 8 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 54/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 10/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 5/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 17/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: CEO compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 36/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 41/100.