Simsbury Performing Arts Center Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
274640969
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2013
Location
Simsbury, CT, USA
Phone
8606514052
Rating
90
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fund Raising and Fund Distribution

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,006,489
Expenses
$1,692,290
Assets
$1,066,164
Liabilities
$1,088,211

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

21 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ALLIE YOUNG (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • ALLIE YOUNG (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $60,167 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The mission of the simsbury performing arts center is to enrich community spirit, quality of life, and economic development in the farmington valley by offering a premier outdoor venue for exceptional arts, educational, and cultural events.

What it reported doing in 2025

In 2025, along with the support of a 250+ strong volunteer corps, simsbury performing arts center (spac) welcomed over 40,000 patrons and visitors to a wide variety of programs including the hartford symphony orchestra's talcott mountain music festival - the hartford symphony summer concert series at spac - five concerts on fridays in july. Other events included: 20th anniversary celebration and let's sing taylor featuring the music of taylor swift, graduations, recitals, community events, as well as multiple festivals and health and wellness events. Through these events and others, spac continued to foster opportunities both locally and throughout the greater hartford region for individuals of all ages, abilities, diverse backgrounds, and economic status to enjoy all that the arts, the town of simsbury, and our unique venue have to offer.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 66% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 94
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 16
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 92.3%; rating input score 92
  • Fundraising efficiency: $35.8 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 78th 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: -68.1%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.63; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.02; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 3.6%; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 12.1% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.7% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 21.4% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 92.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 18 of 18 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $60K · 21 people listed
  • Consistency: 30 of 30 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2014 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 1/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 30/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 4/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 52/100.