Monmouth County Arts Council Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 223642107
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2016–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025
- Location
- Red Bank, NJ, USA
- Phone
- 7322121890
- Rating
- 77
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Arts Council/Agency
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $935,603
- Expenses
- $915,463
- Assets
- $1,116,386
- Liabilities
- $158,558
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
20 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- PERRY BENEDUCE (PRESIDENT)
- LUKE BRESLIN (PRESIDENT EMERITUS)
- JAMES GEISE (VICE PRESIDENT)
- TERESA STAUB (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- TERESA STAUB (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $129,519 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Monmouth county arts council provides programs and services that support the practice, presence, and influence of the arts and of artists throughout monmouth county.
What it reported doing in 2025
Monmouth arts, the leader of the monmouth county arts community, wasfounded in 1971 as a nonprofit and serves as the official county arts agency. Monmouth arts is made up of artists, arts organizations, creative businesses, and supporters of the arts. Monmouth arts' programs and the groups it supports serve more than 750,000 people each year and bring over 3,000 arts events to monmouth county. Monmouth arts supports artists and arts programs through networking events, workshops, and other resources: the arthelps local arts program supports small arts groups and community art through grants; the monmouth teen arts festival brings 2,000 student artists together with professional artists; and monmouth arts' e-blasts, social media, x-it artzine, and website publicize the wide range of arts performances and exhibitions that can be found throughout this culturally rich county.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 80% for direct work, and 20% for grants.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 67
- Transparency & Controls: 79
- Accountability: 97
- Sustainability: 38
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 71.6%; rating input score 72
- Program expense ratio: 72.8%; rating input score 73
- Fundraising efficiency: $6.89 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 25th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 53.7%; rating input score 54; 34th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 95%; rating input score 95; 28th 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: 2.2%; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.22; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.14; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 14.1%; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 8.3% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 10.6% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 22.8% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 71.6% of revenue deployed · 72.8% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 19 of 20 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $666K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $130K · 20 people listed
- Consistency: 32 of 33 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
- Filing history: 10 filing years from 2016 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 10 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 7 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.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 54/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 24/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 37/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 49/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 26/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 30/100.