Caroline County Council of Arts Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
521100196
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2017
Location
Denton, MD, USA
Phone
4104791009
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Art Museums

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$324,666
Expenses
$352,183
Assets
$538,223
Liabilities
$69,034

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • GEORGE KAROS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • CHRIS DORR (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • KENDALL TEAGUE (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • GEORGE KAROS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $46,114 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Enhance the cultural opportunities and access to the arts in each of the countys unique communities. Promote economic development and downtown revitalization through the arts. Inspire creativity and personal development by supporting arts education programs in our schools.

What it reported doing in 2024

The ccca grant-making program provides financial and technical support to other county non-profits for their production of arts events in their communities and/or organizations. These are outdoor festivals, educational arts residencies in public schools, community performances, and instructional classes in music, fine arts, and craft art. Ccca also produces its own arts programming and manages a community arts gallery in the arts entertainment district in denton.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 90% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 79% for direct work, and 21% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 63
  • Transparency & Controls: 72
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 32
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 70.8%; rating input score 71
  • Program expense ratio: 62.5%; rating input score 62
  • Fundraising efficiency: $5.77 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 52.6%; rating input score 53; 43rd 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: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -8.5%; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.53; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.13; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 13.1%; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 9.5% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.9% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.9% per year; rating input score 100; 47th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 70.8% of revenue deployed · 62.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $220K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $46K · 13 people listed
  • Consistency: 26 of 28 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2018 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 53/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 25/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 24/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 52/100.
  • 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.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 24/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 26/100.