Indiana Humanities Council Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
351344382
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Indianapolis, IN, USA
Phone
3176381500
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$7,044,250
Expenses
$2,816,938
Assets
$14,459,814
Liabilities
$235,925

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

Leadership & pay

28 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KEIRA AMSTUTZ (PRESIDENT & CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • KEIRA AMSTUTZ (PRESIDENT & CEO): $251,406 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Indiana humanities was formed in 1972, when the national endowment for the humanities (neh) asked a group of five energetic Indiana citizens to form a statewide grant-making agency. The group was comprised of dr. Marvin e. Hartig, mrs. Edmund f. (Virginia) ball, dr. Robert e. Burns, mr. Edward n. Howard and dr. Robert w. Richey. Their goal was to focus federal dollars on more local, grassroots initiatives. The Indiana committee for the humanities, as it was known then, began its operations on september 1 of that year.throughout our history, three themes have been the hallmark of our work: supportive grant-making, public dialogue and ambitious projects.today, Indiana humanities is a statewide nonprofit that provides public access to the humanities. We do this by providing grants, convening discussions, uplifting humanities practitioners, spotlighting humanities organizations and activities, and creating our own programs.

What it reported doing in 2024

Ih supports humanities programs throughout Indiana. The activities of ih are designed to promote educational public programs in the humanities using literature, history, civics and Indiana's cultural heritage. This work strengthens communities and enhances the quality of life and quality of place for all hoosiers.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 87% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 85% 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 - 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 the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 52
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 93
  • Sustainability: 83
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 33.6%; rating input score 34
  • Program expense ratio: 76.1%; rating input score 76
  • Fundraising efficiency: $34.62 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 5 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 83
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Pass
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 9.7%; rating input score 10; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 96.4%; rating input score 96; 26th 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: Fail
    • 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: 60%; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.13; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 8.9%; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 11.5% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9.2% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 14.1% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 33.6% of revenue deployed · 76.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 27 of 28 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $2.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $251K · 28 people listed · 5 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 33 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 3 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: Mission deployment rate scored 34/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 10/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Document-retention policy not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 34/100.