Allbritton Art Institute
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 311573901
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2017–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Houston, TX, USA
- Phone
- 7135224921
- Rating
- 46
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Education N.E.C.
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,859,074
- Expenses
- $349,233
- Assets
- $10,805,876
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
6 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- BARBARA B ALLBRITTON (VICE PRESIDENT)
- ROBERT L ALLBRITTON (VICE PRESIDENT)
- CHARLES W HALL (VICE PRESIDENT)
- DOROTHY HOLLAND (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF OPERATION)
Highest reported compensation
- JEANNE D LAWVER (ADMINISTRATOR/SECRETARY): $243,804 total reported compensation
- DOROTHY HOLLAND (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF OPERATION): $181,350 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To promote the appreciation and comprehensive study of the artists and art movements of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries for undergraduate students of the allbritton art institute.
What it reported doing in 2024
The allbritton art institute is conducted in conjunction and affiliation with the university of st. Thomas school of arts and sciences. The program focuses on the study of 19th and 20th century art history. It provides approximately 3 courses a semester for undergraduate students and is part of the preparation for further study at the graduate level. The institute provides eligible students the opportunity to participate in international, national and regional field trips and guest lectures in art history. The institute also awards one to two scholarships a year.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Investment-supported. 81% of the money available for current operations came from recurring investment income.
- 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
MIXED - Most voting board members are independent and the filed numbers largely add up. 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: 15
- Transparency & Controls: 60
- Accountability: 91
- Sustainability: 86
- Growth: 0
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 7.2%; rating input score 7
- Program expense ratio: 33.3%; rating input score 33
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 81.2%; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 30.94; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 51.5%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -23.7% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -17.5% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -0.9% per year; rating input score 0; 15th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 7.2% of revenue deployed · 33.3% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $116K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $244K · 6 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 22 of 22 current checks pass
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes executive pay
- Filing history: 8 filing years from 2017 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 5 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 7/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 33/100.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 2/100.