Greater Hartford Arts Council Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
237111486
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Hartford, CT, USA
Phone
8605258629
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,166,657
Expenses
$1,438,260
Assets
$2,148,028
Liabilities
$1,485,386

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

Leadership & pay

19 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Shelley Best (CEO-Former)
  • Amanda Roy (Interim CEO)
  • Haneef Nelson (Vice President)
  • Robert Braswell (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Shelley Best (CEO-Former): $107,308 total reported compensation
  • Amanda Roy (Interim CEO): $79,808 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

We exist to be a catalyst for the arts and promote an equitable arts ecosystem in Greater Hartford.

What it reported doing in 2024

Community Programs: The Greater Hartford Arts Council produces and supports community-based programs that connect residents and visitors to the arts while strengthening the regions creative ecosystem. In 2024, the Council presented concerts, performances, and cultural events that showcased local talent and fostered civic pride. The Arts Council also offered professional development and capacity-building workshops to help artists and arts organizations build sustainable careers and strengthen their operations. In addition, the Council advanced public art initiatives that enlivened shared spaces, encouraged collaboration among artists and property owners, and celebrated the diversity the Capitol region. communities. Together, these programs enhance community connection, economic vitality, and access to the arts for all.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 70% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 76% for direct work, and 24% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 52
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 25
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 60.9%; rating input score 61
  • Program expense ratio: 49.1%; rating input score 49
  • Fundraising efficiency: $4.84 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 17; 17th 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th 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: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -23.3%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.49; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.69; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 13%; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -6.8% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -6.2% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 0.4% per year; rating input score 100; 19th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 60.9% of revenue deployed · 49.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 16 of 16 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $706K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $107K · 19 people listed
  • Consistency: 34 of 35 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 26 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 24 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 49/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 17/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 8/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 56/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 11/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 28/100.