Sculpturewalk Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
208535871
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2011
Location
Sioux Falls, SD, USA
Phone
6053676000
Rating
63
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Visual Arts Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$569,811
Expenses
$473,636
Assets
$3,118,880
Liabilities
$31,183

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • REGAN SMITH (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • JOHN BERANEK (DIRECTOR)
  • NICOLE BELL (DIRECTOR)
  • CAROLYN CHRISTENSEN (DIRECTOR)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

The organization's mission is to bring art to the people, and its guiding principle is to be the highest quality, most professional, financially strong, artist-friendly, year-round outdoor sculpture program in the USA.

What it reported doing in 2024

Sculpturewalk is the largest annual exhibit of public sculptures in the world. Sculptures are typically installed in may of each year and are removed in april of the following year to make room for new incoming sculptures. Most sculptures are available for long-term lease or purchase. Satellite programs are (1) avera mckennan hospital & university health center's ten indoor sculptures, (2) university of sioux falls eleven on-campus sculptures, (3) university of South Dakota seven scupltures, (4) city of vermillion, sd five sculptures, (5) city of watertown, sd seventeen sculptures, and (6) various other lease locations throughout sioux falls, sd. Our sculptures compete for teh annual people's choice award with the winning sculpture being purchased by the city of sioux falls. Approsimately 300,000 people experience sculpturewalk annually.

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 63% for direct work, and 37% for grants.

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 the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 53
  • Transparency & Controls: 62
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 77
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 56.1%; rating input score 56
  • Program expense ratio: 67.1%; rating input score 67
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 88.2%; rating input score 88; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 0%; rating input score 0; 13th 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: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 16.9%; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.58; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6.9% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.4% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 16.7% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 56.1% of revenue deployed · 67.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $318K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 12 people listed
  • Consistency: 24 of 26 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 56/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • 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.