Charleston Fine Arts Dealers Association Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 270355601
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2014–2015
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2015
- Location
- Charleston, SC, USA
- Phone
- 8438198006
- Rating confidence
- Limited
- Sector
- Professional Societies, Associations
Reported finances
- Expenses
- $5,859
- Assets
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
3 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- HELENA FOX (PRESIDENT)
People named in this filing
- HELENA FOX (PRESIDENT)
- JAYNIE SPECTOR (TREASURER)
- LESE CORRIGAN (SECRETARY/CE)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Charleston fine art annual: initial revenues were raised in the periods of 2000-2003. These funds were donated to the gibbes museum of art. In 2004, funds were used to provide art supplies for schools. For eleven years the association held a weekend focused on art education and raising funds for charleston high school art supplies. This weekend event of two to four days was held each year beginning in 1999 on the first full weekend of november. The events were held in various places and include lectures at the gibbes museum of art or rented halls, receptions in member art galleries, painting in the park in Washington park (public) downtown charleston, sc, done by local art students, and an auction on the paintings done in the park in various rented spaces. At times, a panel discussion and/or brunch was held on that sunday. Monies raised from the auction of the paintings done in the park were donated to purchase art supply gift certificates from a local business and given to the county
What it reported doing in 2015
Money raised from the auction of paintings done in the park are donated to purchase art supply gift certificates from a local business and given to the county high school art departments.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent revenue detail to tell how this nonprofit funds its work.
- Distribution model
- Transfer-based 990-EZ. The 990-EZ reports grants or member benefits, but it does not separate enough spending to show the nonprofit’s full delivery mix.
The verdict
- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 10
- Growth: 0
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: Limited
- Program expense ratio: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: Limited
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: Limited
- Asset growth: -200% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 3 filed program accomplishments
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
- Consistency: 1 of 1 current checks pass
- Schedules: 2 filed schedules
- Filing history: 2 filing years from 2014 to 2015
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- 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.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 12/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 52/100.