Native Arts and Cultures Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
261595870
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2007
Location
Portland, OR, USA
Phone
5033883443
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Cultural, Ethnic Awareness

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,690,754
Expenses
$3,220,311
Assets
$18,119,168
Liabilities
$349,656

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

Leadership & pay

18 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SHYLA SPICER (PRESIDENT & CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • SHYLA SPICER (PRESIDENT & CEO): $185,361 total reported compensation
  • KEVIN WASHINGTON (DIRECTOR OF FINANCE): $130,844 total reported compensation
  • ANDREA HANLEY (DIRECTOR OF PROGRAMMING): $124,662 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Native arts and cultures foundation advances equity and cultural knowledge, focusing on the power of arts and collaboration to strengthen native communities and promote positive social change with american indian, native hawaiian, and Alaska native peoples in the us.

What it reported doing in 2024

Lift: early career support for native artists supports emerging native artists to develop new work, refine their craft, advance their careers, and establish their place as vital creative voices in their communities. The program encourages artists to uplift communities, advance positive social change, point courageously toward environmental sustainability, and foster communal meaning-making. Through their projects, lift artists address critical issues around cultural sovereignty, environmental and social justice, healing and well-being, and systemic change. Lift provides $15,000 on-year awards, artist professional development, mentorship, project evaluation, documentation, and communications/marketing support.

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 70% for direct work, and 30% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 74
  • Transparency & Controls: 72
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 35
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 52.7%; rating input score 53
  • Fundraising efficiency: $1.2 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 96.4%; rating input score 96; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -90.5%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.63; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 17.1%; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.9% per year; rating input score 100; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.6% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.4% per year; rating input score 100; 40th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 52.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $185K · 18 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 28 of 29 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 14 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 11 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: Program expense ratio scored 53/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 4/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 1/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 19/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.