Palos Verdes Art Center Beverly G Alpay Center for Arts Education

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
952270012
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA, USA
Phone
3105412479
Rating
64
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Arts Council/Agency

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,282,415
Expenses
$1,939,373
Assets
$12,607,936
Liabilities
$164,855

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

Leadership & pay

17 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Ann Buxton (President)
  • Paula Mannion-Farrow (President)
  • Ryan Crabtree (First Vice President)
  • Elisabeth Walter (Second Vice President)
  • Daniela Saxa-Kaneko (CEO/Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Daniela Saxa-Kaneko (CEO/Executive Director): $199,051 total reported compensation
  • Jeffrey D Stellges (Raffle Manager/Facilities): $124,517 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

PVAC is dedicated to educating, enriching, and building community through equal and inclusive access to the visual arts. Located at the southernmost tip of Los Angeles County, we strive to be a catalyst for the advancement of LA art, culture, and its global impact. Our goal is foster interest in the educational, social, and civic conditions of the community and to advance and carry on the study, development and knowledge of ceramics, glass blowing, painting, printmaking, drawing, sculpture, woodcarving, architecture, and landscape architecture.

What it reported doing in 2024

PVAC presents diverse art and cultural exhibitions, four quarters of visual art and related classes, and special events, lectures, and programs primarily at its three-building, two-acre site with attendance in excess of 21,000. PVAC also sponsored or hosted outreach programs for adults and special programs for persons with disabilities, including young people and seniors. Activities are open to the public and most are free or offered at a moderate fee to offset expenses.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 98% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

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: 48
  • Transparency & Controls: 75
  • Accountability: 96
  • Sustainability: 37
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 52.9%; rating input score 53
  • Program expense ratio: 32.1%; rating input score 32
  • Fundraising efficiency: $32.86 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 25th 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: -51.2%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.5; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 16.7%; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -8% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -1.6% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 0.9% per year; rating input score 100; 21st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 52.9% of revenue deployed · 32.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 15 of 16 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $622K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $199K · 17 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 31 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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 53/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 32/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 3/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 20/100.