Arts Council Napa Valley

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
942710866
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2009
Location
Napa, CA, USA
Phone
7072572117
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Arts Council/Agency

Reported finances

Revenue
$279,414
Expenses
$368,148
Assets
$123,331
Liabilities
$11,639

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Christopher DeNatale (CEO/President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Christopher DeNatale (CEO/President): $97,700 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Arts Council Napa Valley provides leadership that unites, supports, and enhances our exceptional arts and culture community

What it reported doing in 2024

ACNV Education Alliance This Alliance of educators, teaching artists, arts administrators, philanthropists, and community members are collaborating to support students through their school district(s). The Alliance currently serves over 90% of public school students in Napa County through our relationship with the Napa Valley Unified School District and the support of its Arts Education Master Plan. Outside of the relationship with the NVUSD, ACNV's Education Alliance partners for and runs several programs with the goal to equitably support and advance quality sequential arts education for all public school students TK-12. The associated programs and goals achieved in the 2024-25 fiscal year are as follows: - The VAPA (Visual & Performing Arts) Student of the Month Program honors exemplary students in all creative arts disciplines on a monthly basis and culminates with a Scholarship Awards Ceremony in the spring. Over $19,000 in scholarships were awarded to our VAPA Art Students of the Year for the 2024-25 term. - One VAPA educator in Napa County was provided with a $1,000 grant to supplement their classroom materials at the VAPA Student of the Year celebration.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 81% 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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 70
  • Transparency & Controls: 73
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 14
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 79.8%; rating input score 80
  • Program expense ratio: 60.6%; rating input score 61
  • Fundraising efficiency: $11.88 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 38.7%; rating input score 39; 40th 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: 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: -31.8%; rating input score 9; 9th 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 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 26.5%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -6.7% per year; rating input score 0; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -1% per year; rating input score 0; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.4% per year; rating input score 100; 35th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 79.8% of revenue deployed · 60.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 5 filed program accomplishments · $223K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $98K · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 40 of 41 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 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.

  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 39/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 44/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 9/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 17/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 13/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 27/100.