United Arts Council of Raleigh and Wake County Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
560770175
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Raleigh, NC, USA
Phone
9198391498
Rating
82
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Arts Council/Agency

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,905,497
Expenses
$2,004,579
Assets
$1,200,087
Liabilities
$137,345

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

Leadership & pay

20 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JENNIFER MCEWEN (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • JENNIFER MCEWEN (PRESIDENT): $121,916 total reported compensation
  • CINDY BOTTS (VP OF FINANC): $48,704 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The united arts council of raleigh and wake county, inc. Builds better communities through support and advocacy of the arts. The organization strives to (1) champion arts education; (2) serve a larger metropolitan area with emerging population centers in wake county, nc; and (3) build capacity for the local arts community. Since 1990, it has served as the umbrella fundraising organization for the arts in wake county. To accomplish this mission, the orgnization raises money from businesses, indviduals, foundations and government sources. Funds are re-distributed to the community through grants to schools, wake municipalities, artists and arts organizations - all in support of arts programming.

What it reported doing in 2024

Arts education: the council's arts education program supports performances, workshops, residencies, field trips, and professional development for students and educators in wake county k-12 schools. For the year ended june 30, 2025, the council supported more than 460 programs by professional teaching artists, 14 field trips, five eight-week internships, and 18 hours of arts integration workshops for teachers across 155 schools.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 61% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 76% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - 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: 76
  • Transparency & Controls: 88
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 29
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 85.8%; rating input score 86
  • Program expense ratio: 80.9%; rating input score 81
  • Fundraising efficiency: $3.95 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 92.1%; rating input score 92; 39th 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: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • 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: -5.2%; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.6; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.11; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 8.5%; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.5% per year; rating input score 100; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.1% per year; rating input score 100; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.8% per year; rating input score 100; 38th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 85.8% of revenue deployed · 80.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 18 of 18 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $1.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $122K · 20 people listed
  • Consistency: 34 of 35 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 35 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 33 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.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 13/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 24/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 28/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 40/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 42/100.