Arts Sciences & Cultural Council of Charlotte Mecklenburg Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
994002299
IRS 990 coverage
2024–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Charlotte, NC, USA
Phone
7049734500
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Arts Council/Agency

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$14,351,021
Expenses
$8,977,873
Assets
$5,388,300
Liabilities
$15,152

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

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ADAM SANTALLA PIERCE (PRESIDENT (AS OF 10/24))

Highest reported compensation

  • LAURA YATES CLARK (BOARD CHAIR): $234,479 total reported compensation
  • ADAM SANTALLA PIERCE (PRESIDENT (AS OF 10/24)): $24,507 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Foster an inclusive, sustainable, culturally rich and engaged community where arts, science, and history play a pivotal role in enhancing the quality of life for all.

What it reported doing in 2024

The arts sciences & cultural council makes a variety of grants and funds an array of services that contribute to the vitality and sustainability of the regional cultural sector. These grants and services directly align with ascc's mission of investing in people, programs and ideas that move us toward a more equitable, sustainable, and innovative creative ecosystem. Ascc's culture blocks program connects communities with responsive arts and culture experiences close to where residents live. The program engages with creative individuals and organizations to present programs in 10 geographic areas in mecklenburg county. This service directly aligns with how residents want the cultural sector to serve them by building community and increasing cultural program relevance.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 87% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of total spending goes to programs 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: 66
  • Transparency & Controls: 67
  • Accountability: 87
  • Sustainability: 71
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 53.5%; rating input score 53
  • Program expense ratio: 85.4%; rating input score 85
  • Fundraising efficiency: $42.7 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 4th 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: 97.4%; rating input score 97; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 26th 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: 37.4%; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.6; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0.3%; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: 53.5% of revenue deployed · 85.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 15 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $7.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $234K · 16 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 30 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 93 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 93 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 53/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 20/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.