Kalamazoo Art League

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
383594845
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2024
Location
Kalamazoo, MI, USA
Phone
2697438234
Rating
55
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Reported finances

Revenue
$19,766
Expenses
$11,485
Assets
$31,219
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Jim Rojeski (President)
  • Diane Eberts (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Jim Rojeski (President)
  • Diane Eberts (Vice President)
  • Susan Eckhardt (Secretary)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

The Kalamazoo Art League provides an annual arts-related lecture series and other educational experiences to promote understanding, appreciation, and enjoyment of the visual arts.

What it reported doing in 2024

Produced an educational arts-related lecture series (September - Richard Phillips; October - Patrick Brinkley; November - Brian Stewart; February - Richards Phillips; April - Mary Brodbeck; May - Margaret Miles) and organized bus trips to the Cranbrook Art Museum (10/10/24) and Detroit (5/20/25).

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

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue comfortably covers expenses. 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: 34
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 77
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 26.8%; rating input score 27
  • Program expense ratio: 46.7%; rating input score 47

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 41.9%; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.72; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -12.8% per year; rating input score 0; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -5.2% per year; rating input score 0; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3.9% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 26.8% of revenue deployed · 46.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $5K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 15 people listed
  • Consistency: 9 of 9 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 27/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 47/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.