Arts Council of Greater Baton Rouge Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
720735814
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Baton Rouge, LA, USA
Phone
2253448558
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Arts Council/Agency

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,319,456
Expenses
$2,705,780
Assets
$6,950,999
Liabilities
$1,425,368

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

Leadership & pay

26 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Jonathan Grimes (President/CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • Jonathan Grimes (President/CEO): $175,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The Arts Council of Greater Baton Rouge fosters the creative capacity and vibrancy of the capital region through advocacy, resources, and education.

What it reported doing in 2024

The Arts Council of Greater baton Rouge provides cultural programs and services, arts grants and resources, festivals and events, community collaborations and creative projects, and arts education activities in the greater Baton Rouge area. We play a vital rol in sustaining the arts in the Baton Rouge region through free arts programs and opportunities for artists and organizations. We also provide arts education through the East Baton Rouge Parish School System and school systems within our 11 parish service region, as well as professional development for artists, arts organizations, adn educators. Our grants program administers grant opportunities from the Louisiana decentralized arts funding program, local project grants, local multi-cultural grants, as well others, in an 11 parish area. The Arts Council provides greater access to the arts through qualigy programs and initiatives while cultivating a strong community of artists and cultural organizations.

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 90% 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 - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 59
  • Transparency & Controls: 66
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 35
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 62.9%; rating input score 63
  • Program expense ratio: 53.9%; rating input score 54
  • Fundraising efficiency: $19.01 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 87.5%; rating input score 88; 2nd 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: 96.5%; rating input score 96; 31st 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: 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: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -16.7%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.57; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.21; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.5%; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -1.7% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.3% per year; rating input score 100; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 13.3% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 62.9% of revenue deployed · 53.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 24 of 24 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $175K · 26 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 28 of 30 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 11 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 54/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 8/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 58/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Audit committee oversight not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 43/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 44/100.