Cleveland Art Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
346536232
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Cleveland, OH, USA
Phone
2162990835
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Arts, Culture, and Humanities N.E.C.

Reported finances

Revenue
$128,885
Expenses
$81,574
Assets
$1,069,256
Liabilities
$58,873

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

17 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Marc Jaffe (Director/President)
  • Susan Weir (Director/Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Meg Weingart (Director/Secretary): $3,360 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The Cleveland Art Association (carta) was founded in 1915 to promote and support the visual arts in the Greater Cleveland community. It fulfills its mission in two major ways: First, carta owns a collection of more than 200 works of art by Cleveland area artists, which it makes available in an annual loan program to its members. Second, carta supports local art students by awarding annual tuition scholarships. These scholarships are funded with income from the Association's investment funds, through the sale of artwork from its collection as well as annual dues from its members.

What it reported doing in 2025

Provide support to the Cleveland Institute of Art for the purpose of awarding scholarships to enrolled students. Provide an annual cash prize to an emerging artist from Greater Cleveland whose work enters the collection during the current year.

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 79% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

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 some filed totals do not add up.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 72
  • Transparency & Controls: 80
  • Accountability: 63
  • Sustainability: 74
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 80.1%; rating input score 80
  • Program expense ratio: 82.1%; rating input score 82
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

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: 94.3%; rating input score 94; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 36.7%; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 13.11; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.06; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.1%; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 7.2% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5% per year; rating input score 100; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.6% per year; rating input score 100; 42nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 80.1% of revenue deployed · 82.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 17 of 17 board members independent · 1 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $67K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $3K · 17 people listed
  • Consistency: 24 of 26 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 7 not reported.
  • 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 27/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 31/100.