Elizabeth Anne Carlson Performing Arts Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
811827604
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2024–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025
Location
West Hartford, CT, USA
Phone
8603738198
Rating
40
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Scholarships, Student Financial Aid Services, Awards

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$54,169
Expenses
$32,561
Assets
$219,850
Liabilities
$58,800

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Audrey Carlson (Chairperson, Director, President)
  • Leslie Schlachter (Director, Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Alfred Kritzman (Director, Treasurer, Secretary)
  • Audrey Carlson (Chairperson, Director, President)
  • Bruce Carlson (Vice Chairperson, Director, Assistant Treasurer)

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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Part III. Our organization provides college scholarships to Connecticut high school seniors demonstrating an interest in furthering their performing arts careers.

What it reported doing in 2025

Provided $27,450 in college scholarships to Madison Burns, Bristol, CT, Marymount Manhattan College ($5,000). Sana Sarr, Monroe, CT - Ithaca College ($6,250). Griffin Parrow, Granby, CT, Manhattan School of Music ($6,250). Mindy Zhao, West Hartford, CT, Yale University ($3,700). Alana Laporta, Southington, CT, George Mason University ($6,250).

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 81% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue comfortably covers expenses. 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: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 74
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 39.9%; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.75; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.27; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 56.4% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.3% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 8 of 9 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2024 to 2025
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part III transfer expenses within program total did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 10/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.