Ryman Arts
Legal name: The Ryman-carroll Foundation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 951051084
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2014–2025
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025
- Location
- Los Angeles, CA, US
- Phone
- (213) 629-ARTS (2787)
- Rating
- 78
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Single Organization Support
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,268,306
- Expenses
- $1,502,262
- Assets
- $4,774,610
- Liabilities
- $105,287
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
13 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- DAVID A PRICE (PRESIDENT)
- CHRISTIAN LACHEL (VICE-PRESIDENT)
- AUDREY SALZBURG (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- AUDREY SALZBURG (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $197,177 total reported compensation
- WALTER MARSH (DIRECTOR OF FINANCE & OPERATIONS): $109,228 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Ryman Arts transforms lives by creating access and opportunity for a diverse community of young artists through self-expression, rigorous education in fundamental art skills, and mentoring.
What it reported doing in 2025
2025 program highlights this year, ryman arts expanded its comprehensive services and special opportunities to help students transition to college and beyond. In fall 2025, 1051 students, alumni, and their families participated in the college preparation weekend, a virtual two-day event offering 23 sessions. Representatives from colleges and arts schools nationwide conducted portfolio reviews, admissions sessions, and financial aid workshops for students and parents. Continued on schedule o.throughout the year, students learned from visiting guest artists, including established and mid-career artists and professionals across a variety of creative fields. Alumni engagement was strengthened in 2025 through the spring creative careers program, which included 16 virtual and in-person events held over the course of a month. We deepened relationships with alumni working in the creative workforce, adding a new layer to our career services as they served as role models and shared their professional experiences with the next generation of ryman arts students. Session topics ranged from balancing a freelance career, to theme park design and entertainment licensing. The total attendance across all events was 575, including students, alumni, families and community members.community engagement efforts continued both in-person and virtually in 2025. Leveraging our strong relationships with educators, community leaders, and high schools in low-income areas, ryman arts expanded application guidance and program access to more underserved youth and new communities. Activities included virtual information sessions in english and spanish for students and families, as well as participation in various virtual community events. We also continued our multi-year partnership with the santa ana unified school district (sausd), offering free presentations, on-site drawing workshop, teacher professional development, and campus visits to cal state fullerton, with the goal of creating a pipeline of students from sausd schools to the ryman arts program. Our combined community engagement programming reached a total of 1,800 people in 2025. The most exciting addition in 2025 was bringing back usc as a third campus location, renewing a long time partnership that had been on pause since 2012. We held a summer intensive class through june-july summer 2025, and look forward to being back in 2026. In 2025, we also secured an agreement with California state san bernardino as a new campus for ryman arts, and we began classes there in january 2026.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 77% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- 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.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 70
- Transparency & Controls: 84
- Accountability: 91
- Sustainability: 34
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 83.2%; rating input score 83
- Program expense ratio: 68.5%; rating input score 68
- Fundraising efficiency: $3.78 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
- Compensation committee: Pass
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Pass
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -18.4%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.18; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 20.4%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 2.3% per year; rating input score 100; 24th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 0.2% per year; rating input score 100; 12th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 5.3% per year; rating input score 100; 37th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 5 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 6 operating locations identified
- Where the money goes: 83.2% of revenue deployed · 68.5% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $197K · 13 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 32 of 32 current checks pass
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
- Filing history: 11 filing years from 2014 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
- 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 — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 11/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 7/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 16/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 52/100.