The Council for Art Education Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
222547146
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2014–2024
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2024
Location
Hingham, MA, USA
Phone
5037206911
Rating
84
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Arts Education

Reported finances

Revenue
$33,852
Expenses
$42,758
Assets
$62,147

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Kris Baakke (Vice President)
  • Linda Kieling (Past President)
  • Phyllis Wang (President)

People named in this filing

  • Ronald C Kieling (Treasurer)
  • Mary Reilly (Secretary)
  • Jessica McCorkle (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-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Promotion of art and art education in schools.

What it reported doing in 2024

March is promoted as Youth Art Month (YAM) by state educators as an advocacy program to recognize artistic skills. CFAE administers the program at the national level to support these schools and art educators in their efforts. 2024 NAEA Conference booth was a success promoting education through art and engaging teachers and sponsors alike. 156 educators were enrolled in the program in 2024. CFAE has now 164 members. CFAE had 39 YAM flags at the conference (National Convention)in 2024, which is the most ever.

Operating model

Revenue model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent revenue detail to tell how this nonprofit funds its work.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 67% for direct work, and 33% for grants.

The verdict

STRONG - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Expenses are high relative to revenue and revenue has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 79
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Sustainability: 33
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 85.8%; rating input score 86
  • Program expense ratio: 68%; rating input score 68

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -26.3%; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.45; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0% per year; rating input score 100; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -1% per year; rating input score 0; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1.5% per year; rating input score 100; 45th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 85.8% of revenue deployed · 68% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 2 filed program accomplishments · $29K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 12 people listed
  • Consistency: 7 of 7 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2014 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 20/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 57/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.