Lexarts Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
611163184
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2022
Location
Lexington, KY, USA
Phone
8592552951
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Arts Council/Agency

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,767,301
Expenses
$1,985,419
Assets
$3,075,849
Liabilities
$2,109,348

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

Leadership & pay

24 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • AMELIA SWEETALL (PRESIDENT, CEO & DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • AMELIA SWEETALL (PRESIDENT, CEO & DIRECTOR): $89,571 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Lexarts promotes quality arts experiences for the benefit of the people in central Kentucky through funding, advocacy, technical assistance, communication and planning initiatives.

What it reported doing in 2024

Lexarts regrants funds raised through its annual fund for the arts to five partner organizations that receive general operating support (gos) and 20+ arts organizations in the form of program and project grants. The application processes for these grants are rigorous, requiring evidence of financial stability and artistic quality. Service to youth, diverse and underserved audiences is emphasized as are audience size, community participation, collaboration, and evaluation. Written applications and financial information are vetted by lexarts staff, evaluated on paper and in an open public process by a panel of peer reviewers, further reviewed by the grants committee of the lexarts board of directors and finally approved by the lexarts board as a whole.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 78% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 51
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 98
  • Sustainability: 31
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 51%; rating input score 51
  • Program expense ratio: 42.8%; rating input score 43
  • Fundraising efficiency: $40.41 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.4%; rating input score 94; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 82.6%; rating input score 83; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 95.8%; rating input score 96; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • 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: -12.3%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.55; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.69; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.5%; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -1.2% per year; rating input score 0; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.4% per year; rating input score 100; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.4% per year; rating input score 100; 36th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 51% of revenue deployed · 42.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 23 of 24 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $849K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $90K · 24 people listed
  • Consistency: 30 of 31 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 24 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 21 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 51/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 43/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 15/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 57/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 11/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 54/100.