North Valley Arts Council

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
363452362
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2017–2017
Forms available
Form 990 2015, Form 990-EZ 2017
Location
Grand Forks, ND, USA
Phone
7017408189
Rating
81
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Arts Council/Agency

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,438
Expenses
$11,577
Assets
$0

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • BRYAN HOIME (PRESIDENT)
  • DAVID BADMAN (VICE PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • BRYAN HOIME (PRESIDENT)
  • DAVID BADMAN (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • JANICE HOFFARTH (TREASURER)

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 2017. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The north valley arts council supports arts and culture for the artists, art organizations and citizens of greater grand forks. Novac strives to raise the levels of appreciation, support and participation in the arts and cultural communities within greater grand forks. We believe that a vibrant community of arts and cultural groups, organizations and entities, as well as individual

What it reported doing in 2017

North valley arts council held the grand cities art fest in june 2016 in downtown grand forks and east grand forks. Entry fees were collected from participating artists. The north valley arts council set up the space for the fest, provided advertising and promotion and solicited support from other organizations in the area.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 97% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Multi-channel. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 24% for direct work, 60% for grants, and 16% for member benefits.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Revenue has declined or grown slowly and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 100
  • Transparency & Controls: 75
  • Sustainability: 9
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -236.7%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -13.6% per year; rating input score 0; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.6% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 2 filed program accomplishments · $12K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 6 of 6 current checks pass
  • 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 — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 4/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 2/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.