Humanities Council of Washington Dc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
521166432
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2027703077
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community Foundations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,121,618
Expenses
$2,717,191
Assets
$1,278,283
Liabilities
$234,776

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

Leadership & pay

19 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • REBECCA LEMOS-OTERO (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • REBECCA LEMOS-OTERO (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $166,628 total reported compensation
  • KAREN OLIVER DIRECTOR OF (OPERATIONS UNTIL JAN. 2025): $121,173 total reported compensation
  • LOIS NEMBHARD DIRECTOR OF (GRANTS & PUBLIC PROGRAMMING): $117,186 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 enrich the quality of life, foster intellectual stimulation, and promote cross-cultural understanding and appreciation of local history and culture in all neighborhoods of the district through humanities programs and grants.

What it reported doing in 2024

Each year, humanities council of Washington d.c. (humanitiesdc) reaches thousands of people, across all ages and a variety of demographics, through original public programming, and community grantmaking that supports over 70 public humanities organizations, programs and projects across Washington, dc. These public humanities offerings engage participants in discussions on community history, socio-political issues, literature, art history and criticism, and many more topics connected to life and culture in the city. Through its work, humanitiesdc reaches out to all eight wards.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 88% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 65% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 70
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 87
  • Sustainability: 44
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 66.1%; rating input score 66
  • Program expense ratio: 75.9%; rating input score 76
  • Fundraising efficiency: $40.5 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: 99.6%; rating input score 100; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 13%; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.47; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.18; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 15.1%; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 12.3% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 11.3% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.8% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 66.1% of revenue deployed · 75.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 15 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $167K · 19 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 34 of 34 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2013 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 50 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 46 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.
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 16/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 19/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 46/100.