Art Omi Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
133641616
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Ghent, NY, USA
Phone
5183924747
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
International Cultural Exchange

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$9,557,571
Expenses
$9,117,200
Assets
$48,172,688
Liabilities
$19,769,504

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

24 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JEREMY ADAMS (CO-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • RUTH ADAMS (CO-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • JEREMY ADAMS (CO-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $91,789 total reported compensation
  • RUTH ADAMS (CO-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $85,292 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Art omi believes that exposure to internationally diverse creative voices fosters acceptance and respect, raises awareness, inspires innovation, and ignites change. By forming community with creative expression as its common denominator, art omi creates a sanctuary for the artistic community and the public to affirm the transformative quality of art. Art omi is a not-for-profit arts center with a 120-acre sculpture and architecture park and gallery, residency programs for international architects, artists, dancers, musicians, translators, and writers, and a thriving arts education program serving our local community.

What it reported doing in 2024

Situated on 120 acres in the hudson valley, art omi presents the work of contemporary artists and architects, and offers a range of large scale works in nature, plus exhibitions in a 1,500 sq ft gallery. The sculpture & architecture park currently offers more than 60 works by artists and architects, with pieces added or exchanged each year. Art omi welcomes the public to the grounds and public events free of charge and is open 6 days a week year round.

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 71% for direct work, and 29% for 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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 45
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 60
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 46%; rating input score 46
  • Program expense ratio: 47.3%; rating input score 47
  • Fundraising efficiency: $9.3 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 35; 35th 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: Limited
  • 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; 63rd 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: 4.6%; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.28; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.41; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 1.9%; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 7.2% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 10.2% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3.8% per year; rating input score 100; 28th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 46% of revenue deployed · 47.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 22 of 22 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $4.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $92K · 24 people listed
  • Consistency: 34 of 34 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 46/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 47/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 35/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 49/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 26/100.