Carroll County Arts Council Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
521072680
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Westminster, MD, USA
Phone
4108487272
Rating
62
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Arts Council/Agency

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$802,928
Expenses
$795,054
Assets
$926,265
Liabilities
$6,905

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

Leadership & pay

20 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • GAIL SLATER (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • STEPHEN STROSNIDER (INTER EXEC D): $76,354 total reported compensation
  • LYNNE GRIFFITH (EXECUTIVE DI): $65,271 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 carroll county arts council strengthens and enriches carroll county, culturally and economically, by promoting the arts, arts education, and diverse cultural expression. Through innovative programming, community collaboration, and active facilitation we strive to integrate the arts into the everyday lives of the community.

What it reported doing in 2024

From july 1, 2024 to june 30, 2025, the carroll county arts council engaged 773 professional and local artists for in-person arts and cultural programming, providing equitable compensation and direct economic support to Maryland artists. During this period, the arts council produced 135 programs and community activities spanning live performances, film, exhibitions, festivals, and public events, serving more than 32,600 patrons and audience members across carroll county. These activities were supported by a robust volunteer network, with community members contributing significant in-kind service hours in support of the arts council's mission. In addition to direct programming, the arts council administered 27 grants totaling 69,500 through its established re-granting programs, supporting nonprofit arts organizations, individual artists, and academic institutions throughout the county. Funded organizations collectively produced hundreds of arts programs, engaged tens of thousands of participants, and supported substantial volunteer involvement, extending the reach and impact of arts and cultural activity well beyond arts council-produced programs. The carroll county arts council implements three primary grant programs annually: the community arts development (cad) grant, the arts opportunity mini grant, and the arts in education (aie) grant. Cad grants provide general operating and program support to established nonprofit organizations, strengthening organizational sustainability, artistic excellence, and community access. Arts opportunity mini grants support individual artists and small organizations through project funding and professional development opportunities. Arts in education grants support academic institutions in integrating Maryland artists into learning experiences, with priority given to title i schools. The arts council also administers two long-standing scholarship programs. The tom holder memorial scholarship supports youth participation in arts classes, camps, and theatre programs, reducing financial barriers to access. The tevis college arts scholarship awards 1,000 annually to graduating seniors from each county high school pursuing post-secondary education in the arts. Since its inception in 1986, the tevis scholarship program has awarded more than 145,000 to over 200 students, supporting attendance at 100+ unique colleges and universities nationwide.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 80% for direct work, and 20% for grants.

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: 51
  • Transparency & Controls: 69
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 43
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 58.4%; rating input score 58
  • Program expense ratio: 48.9%; rating input score 49
  • Fundraising efficiency: $6.19 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 16.4%; rating input score 16; 26th 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: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 1%; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.17; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 17.8%; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -1.6% per year; rating input score 0; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.9% per year; rating input score 100; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6% per year; rating input score 100; 43rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 58.4% of revenue deployed · 48.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 18 of 18 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $389K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $76K · 20 people listed
  • Consistency: 34 of 35 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2013 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 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 58/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 49/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 16/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 23/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 39/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 48/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 18/100.