Espanola Valley Fiber Arts Center

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
850442395
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2023, Form 990-N 2020
Location
Espanola, NM, USA
Phone
5057443577
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Visual Arts Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$186,150
Expenses
$296,607
Assets
$289,137
Liabilities
$42,131

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DAIN DALLER (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • DEBBIE HARRIS (RETAIL MANAG): $44,386 total reported compensation
  • KIMBERLY ZITZOW (DIRECTOR): $42,597 total reported compensation
  • MICHELLE PEIXINHO (RETAIL ASSOC): $8,287 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Primary exempt purpose the espanola valley fiber arts center (evfac) is a unique resource for fiber artists and those who find beauty in the fiber arts. Visitors to the adobe storefront in the historic district of espanola enter a world of looms, colorful yarns, beautiful handmade textiles, books, and supplies. Evfacs mission is to cultivate and support accessible, multi-generational participation in local, traditional and contemporary fiber arts.

What it reported doing in 2024

Education: developing expertise in fiber arts for adults and youth through a diverse education portfolio. Offerings include classes, workshops, and lectures on various fiber arts topics. Programs include walk in & weave to engage new weavers, a youth summer fiber arts camp, a grant-funded chimayo weaving apprenticeship to train new production weavers in this local heritage craft, a rigid heddle teacher training for public school teachers and an internship program where we host a local college student for ten weeks per semester. Adult classes are held nearly every weekend year-round, as well as through outreach and collaborations with established institutions and youth organizations.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

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 expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 78
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 63
  • Sustainability: 18
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 65.8%; rating input score 66
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • 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: 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: -59.3%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.97; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.15; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 32.1%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -3.7% per year; rating input score 0; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -13.8% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -2.5% per year; rating input score 0; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 65.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 212 of 6 board members independent · 1 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $195K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $44K · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 27 of 28 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2015 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 4/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 40/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Independent members within voting members did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 10/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 23/100.