Nacogdoches Arts Collaborative
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 844518457
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2024–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Jul 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2022
- Location
- Nacogdoches, TX, US
- Phone
- 9363713475
- Rating
- 45
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Arts, Cultural Organizations - Multipurpose
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $71,528
- Expenses
- $51,620
- Assets
- $30,003
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
5 people listed
People named in this filing
- Josh Gentry (Secretary)
- Lauren Burrow (VP)
- Sharon Scifres (Board Member)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Increase access to diverse, multicultural, artistic opportunities while supporting local artists.
What it reported doing in 2024
NAC Kids Theatre Camp and Art Camp are creative camps for children hosted in the summer. Theatre camp is ages 8-14 and art Camp served ages 3-16. Theatre Camp revenue was $5795 and Art Camp was $1750. We also received a $1500 grant from Nacogdoches Junior Forum. Expenses include instructors scripts and royalties supplies snacks tshirts venue rental and printing. The income reflects a still unpaid camp director filled with a volunteer.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 79% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.
The verdict
MIXED - 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: 12
- Transparency & Controls: 74
- Accountability: 76
- Sustainability: 57
- Growth: NotEnoughData
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 12.4%; rating input score 12
- Program expense ratio: 17.2%; rating input score 17
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 81.8%; rating input score 82; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Fail
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 27.8%; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.58; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: Limited
- Asset growth: Limited
Details
- What they do: 5 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 12.4% of revenue deployed · 17.2% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $9K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
- Consistency: 35 of 43 current checks pass · 8 findings to review
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules
- 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 12/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 17/100.
- Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 18/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Advertising column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX AllOtherExpenses column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX InformationTechnology column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Insurance column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX OfficeExpenses column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Royalties column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.