Hunterdon Art Museum

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
221550244
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Clinton, NJ, USA
Phone
9087358415
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Art Museums

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$643,767
Expenses
$863,413
Assets
$3,135,928
Liabilities
$510,493

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

Leadership & pay

17 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Megan Lazovick (Vice President)
  • Cynthia Raiton (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Marjorie F Nathanson (Fmr Exec Dir): $100,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

For more than seventy years the hunterdon art museum in clinton, New Jersey has served as an invaluable cultural and educational resource for New Jersey and the surrounding areas and has carried out its mission to engage people with contemporary art, craft and design in ways that educate, challenge and inspire community through the arts. Hunterdon countys only art museum is located in an 1836 gristmill that is on the state and national historic registers. The four-story building has three floors of exhibition space and one floor of art studios. The museum presents approximately twelve exhibitions annually and offers many studio art courses, workshops, and art camps. Approximately 17,000 visitors came to the museums grounds, exhibitions, lectures, workshops, studio art classes, camps, interpretive programs and community events during fy24. The museum s admission fee is $7 for adults, $5 for seniors, military, and students, members, children under 12 and those who participate in new jers

What it reported doing in 2024

The museums exhibitions have garnered a reputation for their high qualilty and interesting subject matter. From group shows that investigate trends in contemporary art to one-person exhibitions that explore personal journeys, the museum brings extraordinary artwork to our region with approximately thirteen exhibitions annually. Here are examples from fy24: as a museum that has explored contemporary ceramics in numerous exhibitions, we were excited to initiate claybash, a juried triennial ceramics exhibition. Jennifer martin, executive director of the clay studio, philadelphia, was the juror. The show sought lively and interesting interpretations of clay as material and idea and brought together work by ceramic artists from across the country. Planetaria, a solo show by artist and poet moncial ong, leveraged the language of astronomy to explore the precarious territories of motherhood, women in science, and diaspora identity. A solo show by nona hershey explored the digital age. Her watercolors combined beautifully rendered clouds with pixelated, colorful forms. A two-person show of the work of painter marsha goldberg and sculptor andrew zimmerman paired two artists who use color and abstraction to create dynamic work. In the fall the main gallery was filled with the extraordinary landscapes of philip adams who meticulously depicts mountains and water scenes that incorporate remnants of humanity. His work encourages the viewer to ask questions about the changing environment and our impact on it. In addition to paintings, for the show adams created a temporary mural within the gallery. In the exhibition over the paper plane, ahrong kims whimsical and detailed ceramic figures provided viewers with a glimpse of her emotional states. Hams annual members exhibition was juried by joao (juno) zago, an artist and the creative director of gallery aferro in newark. The exhibition included an array of styles and mediums that showed the talents of our members. New work by kate dodd was shown in the museums first floor gallery. Using imagery from childrens books as well as medical x-rays kate exhibited work that recycled familiar materials to tell new stories. Perhaps the highlight of the show was a site-specific installation that incorporated unused items discarded by a cosmetics company. Hundreds of lipstick tubes seemed to invade the building, moving through walls and falling from the grain shoots that remained from the buildings life as a mill. Cynthia carlsons paintings filled the second floor main gallery during the winter. Abstractions and older work introduced the viewer to an artist whose work spanned several decades. Assemblage artist ellen siegels work incorporated found objects that in her hands told new stories. The members highlight exhibition was awarded to aleksandar popovic. His landscapes combined abstract elements. Spurring the viewer to consider climate change. Street photographer pavarti kumar exhibited images from around the world. Her colorful shots showed the artists ability to capture iconic moments. Uncontained: reimaging basketry brought together artists from across the country. Unusual materials and shapes explored how baskets no longer need to be functional, but have become fine art. Painter debra ramsays beautiful abstract paintings represented birds seen in central park. By distributing their colors on acrylic panels the artist is able to capture the sense that one is seeing a bird in flight. Within the gallery, a video with bird calls created a multi-sensory experience. In addition to the above rotating exhibitions, sculptures by tom otterness, toshiko takaezu and noriko sakayama were located on the museums terrace and accessible to the public 24/7. Also on the terrace and new this year is a mural by philip adams, representing origami boats floating down a river. Representing the museums impact on the community as the arts move outward from the museum to the people it engages.

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. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 70
  • Transparency & Controls: 87
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 33
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 86.5%; rating input score 86
  • Program expense ratio: 63.9%; rating input score 64
  • Fundraising efficiency: $3.54 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 11; 11th 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: 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: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -34.1%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.63; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.16; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 11.6%; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1.7% per year; rating input score 100; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -0.9% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 0.4% per year; rating input score 100; 19th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 86.5% of revenue deployed · 63.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $552K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $100K · 17 people listed
  • Consistency: 26 of 27 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 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.

Key Signals

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

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 11/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 5/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 32/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 35/100.