Arts for the City Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
264817884
IRS 990 coverage
2022–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2020, Form 990-N 2012
Location
Des Moines, IA, USA
Phone
5157703380
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Arts Education

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$538,003
Expenses
$539,527
Assets
$355,835
Liabilities
$83,049

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MACKENZIE SHEEHAN (PRESIDENT)
  • YVETTE SANCHEZ (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • MICHELLE BOLTON KING (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • MICHELLE BOLTON KING (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $65,730 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Asap affirms young people through the arts by providing access to quality, engaging arts experiences for lifelong impact.

What it reported doing in 2024

Asap expands access to the arts for young people in des moines through engaging, educational arts programs led by teaching artists, at dozens of locations where kids already are. Asap served more than 10,000 participants at 56 locations through a full year of programs in all arts disciplines: visual, dance, music, drama, literary, culinary, and more. Programs included multi-week after-school arts classes; school-day curriculum-aligned arts integration; drama clubs; piano labs; summer learning-loss-prevention; arts camps; outreach events; and free weekly drop-in arts classes at public library branches. Guided by its core values of connection, creativity, commitment, and care, asap customizes programs to meet community needs while adhering to best practices in arts teaching, youth development, safety, and nonprofit governance.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 65% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The program-spending lines do not add up, so the filing cannot show reliably whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

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: 47
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 32
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 52.1%; rating input score 52
  • Program expense ratio: 51.3%; rating input score 51
  • Fundraising efficiency: $2.39 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -0.3%; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.66; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.23; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 12.2%; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 26.5% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 17.4% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 28.3% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 52.1% of revenue deployed · 51.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $277K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $66K · 12 people listed
  • Consistency: 23 of 24 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2022 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 52/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 51/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 7/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 34/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 30/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 29/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 30/100.