Regional Arts & Culture Council

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
931059037
IRS 990 coverage
2017–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Portland, OR, USA
Phone
5038235111
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Arts Council/Agency

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,884,296
Expenses
$5,305,269
Assets
$8,963,986
Liabilities
$5,478,708

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

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • GREG NETZER (INTERIM EX DIR): $136,000 total reported compensation
  • DELLA RAE (FORMER CIO): $131,798 total reported compensation
  • KRISTIN CALHOUN (Dr. of Partnership): $121,167 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 enrich our communities through arts and culture.

What it reported doing in 2024

Public art - raccs nationally acclaimed public art program includes the innovative development and management of the 2% percent for art ordinances for the city of portland and multnomah county and the public art that results from those funds. These include long-term artworks, temporary and performance-based public art, and a series of artist residencies in community settings and/or public agencies. A community participatory selection process founded in raccs core values is seminal to this work. The commissioning of artworks for multnomah county libraries, portland parks & recreation, portland bureau of transportation, and the port of portland are currently very prominent in this work. Racc also manages a murals program, which includes an artist training and development component. The collections management includes the maintenance and conservation of artworks as well as the acquisition and placement of portable scale artworks, including the visual chronicle of portland, for public spaces. Additionally, racc provides review and oversight of code driven projects with private developers as well as public art management contracting services for a variety of local and national agencies, both public and private.

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 66% for direct work, and 34% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Program spending has declined or grown slowly and revenue has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 78
  • Transparency & Controls: 79
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 30
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 82.1%; rating input score 82
  • Program expense ratio: 74.9%; rating input score 75
  • Fundraising efficiency: $22.87 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 86.7%; rating input score 87; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 68.8%; rating input score 69; 18th 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: 9 of 9 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: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -8.6%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.69; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.61; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 7.3%; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -6.4% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -4.7% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -2.5% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 82.1% of revenue deployed · 74.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $136K · 16 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $636K reported
  • Consistency: 28 of 30 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2017 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 3 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 — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 15/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 56/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 16/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 40/100.