Peoria Riverfront Museum

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
272920016
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2023
Location
Peoria, IL, USA
Phone
3094726683
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Museum, Museum Activities

Reported finances

Revenue
$6,452,439
Expenses
$6,671,898
Assets
$13,052,586
Liabilities
$1,883,180

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

Leadership & pay

23 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • John Morris (President & CEO)
  • Ruth Bittner (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • John Morris (President & CEO): $224,757 total reported compensation
  • Ruth Bittner (Vice President): $84,353 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To inspire lifelong learning for all, connecting art, history, science and achievement through collections, exhibitions, and programs.

What it reported doing in 2024

Giant Screen Theater: The Peoria Riverfront Museum includes a Giant Screen Theater. The content presented in the Giant Screen Theater is reviewed by the museum's Programs staff to help ensure that it supports the mission of the museum. The content includes documentaries made for a giant screen, films that enhance current exhibitions, and classic or second-run movies that meet the mission and take full advantage of the giant screen's technical capabilities. Revenue includes Concession sales.

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 100% 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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 67
  • Transparency & Controls: 62
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 41
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 71.7%; rating input score 72
  • Program expense ratio: 67.4%; rating input score 67
  • Fundraising efficiency: $10.98 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • 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 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: -3.4%; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.96; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.14; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.6%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.6% per year; rating input score 100; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.2% per year; rating input score 100; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -2.7% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 71.7% of revenue deployed · 67.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 23 of 23 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $4.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $225K · 23 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $262K reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 33 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 41/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 23/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 51/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.