Harriman-jewell Series

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
331474286
IRS 990 coverage
2024–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Liberty, MO, USA
Phone
8164155025
Rating
43
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Performing Arts Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$248,427
Expenses
$3,197
Assets
$350,898
Liabilities
$105,668

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

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Steve Karbank (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Clark W Morris (Treasurer): $195,420 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To bring the best of the performing arts to the Kansas City community.

What it reported doing in 2024

The Harriman-Jewell Series continues to bring the world's foremost stars in classical music to Kansas City. In the recently completed 2024-25 season, we offered 13 performances and 20 educational events, more than 250 artists appeared in our programming, and we served 17,776 individuals across the Kansas City area. In 2024-2025 we celebrated our 60th Anniversary of showcasing high-quality artists from around the world to local audiences. Some notable presentations included our opening event in Helzberg Hall of the Kauffman Center of the Performing Arts featuring pianist Khatia Buniatishvili, Itzhak Perlman with an ensemble of Klezmer musicians, Joyce DiDonato singing with ensemble King's Return, the Czech National Symphony Orchestra, and the Ballet Folklorico De Mexico, to name a few. We sought programming that was varied and included a multidisciplinary lineup of dance, symphony orchestras, opera stars, instrumentalists, jazz and chamber musicians. Most notable for our organization, last season we established Harriman-Jewell Series (the Series) as an independent 501c3 entity to best fulfill our mission to bring extraordinary artistic experiences to Kansas City. William Jewell College formed the Series as a college department in 1965, but our growth has allowed us to sustain our operations independently from the College and provides us the opportunity to independently manage our operations into the future. Externally, this shift will have little impact; however, operationally it allows the Series financial independence and independent Board governance. The Series staff remains in place which will aid in a seamless transition of operations. We are honored that our donor base has remained loyal to the Series throughout this transition, and they have shown their enthusiasm and support for this next step.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. 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: 8
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 78
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0.3%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 25%; rating input score 25
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • 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: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 98.7%; rating input score 100; 100th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 109.76; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.3; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 485.9%; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0.3% of revenue deployed · 25% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $798 in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $195K · 3 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 13 of 13 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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 25/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 16/100.