Baltimore Office of Promotion and the Arts Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
900091850
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2023
Forms available
Form 990 2023
Location
Baltimore, MD, USA
Phone
4107528632
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Arts, Cultural Organizations - Multipurpose

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,763,634
Expenses
$4,751,597
Assets
$3,587,643
Liabilities
$2,496,296

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

17 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • BRIAN LYLES (PRESIDENT (PARTIAL))
  • FRANKLIN N MCNEIL JR (VICE PRESIDENT (PARTIAL))
  • RACHEL GRAHAM (CEO (PARTIAL))
  • TODD YUHANIC (CEO (PARTIAL))

Highest reported compensation

  • BRIAN WENTZ (CFO (PARTIAL)): $199,509 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The baltimore office of promotion & the arts (bopa) was created in 2002 with a mission to make baltimore a more vibrant and creative city. Bopa serves as baltimore city's designated arts council and film office and coordinates a wide variety of arts programming for the benefit of all people in baltimore. Bopa is responsible for producing special events and promotions throughout baltimore as well as managing several city landmarks and attractions.

What it reported doing in 2023

Arts and cultural promotion - as baltimore city's arts council, the baltimore office of promotion & the arts provides resources and opportunities to artists and artist organizations to enhance arts and culture programming for the benefit of all people in baltimore.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 71% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 83% 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. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 65
  • Transparency & Controls: 80
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 34
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 67.8%; rating input score 68
  • Program expense ratio: 67.4%; rating input score 67
  • Fundraising efficiency: $11.58 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 87.5%; rating input score 88; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 67.7%; rating input score 68; 19th 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; 64th 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: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 0.3%; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.76; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.7; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.2%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -5.5% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -1.7% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -2.6% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 67.8% of revenue deployed · 67.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $3.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $200K · 17 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 33 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2011 to 2023
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 19 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 20 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: Fundraising efficiency scored 42/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 36/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 28/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 14/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 58/100.