United Arts of Central Minnesota

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
363377185
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2014
Forms available
Form 990 2014
Location
St Cloud, MN, USA
Phone
3202573116
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Federated Giving Programs

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$-15,938
Expenses
$133,234
Assets
$147,162
Liabilities
$784

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MARY SOROKO (PRESIDENT)
  • CHARLES WELTER (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • CHRIS SHORBA (DIRECTOR, PAST PRESIDENT)
  • LUCINDA HAWKER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • LUCINDA HAWKER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $51,000 total reported compensation
  • BONNIE MERKLING (NON-VOTING DIRECTOR): $48,765 total reported compensation
  • RALPH SEARLES (DIRECTOR): $3,461 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To improve the quality of life for people in central Minnesota by raising money and support for the area's leading arts organizations.

What it reported doing in 2014

In the 2014-2015 fiscal year, united arts of central mn granted $30,000 in operating support to six leading nonprofit arts organizations in the greater st. Cloud area that together had a budget of $1.83 million and provided cultural and educational programs and other arts opportunities to more than 82,000 central Minnesota students, residents, and visitors. In addition, united arts of central mn provided grants to three community projects; $3,000 to great children's theatre for the building of its volunteer and education center, $1,000 to the st. Cloud arts commission for public art and $500 to wirth center for the performing arts for microphones.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 94% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 41% for direct work, and 59% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 82
  • Transparency & Controls: 77
  • Accountability: 69
  • Sustainability: 15
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 65.9%; rating input score 66
  • Fundraising efficiency: $4.92 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 50.1%; rating input score 50; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -936%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.1; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 77.5%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -20.3% per year; rating input score 0; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -40% per year; rating input score 0; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -15.8% per year; rating input score 0; 15th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 65.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 11 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $88K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $51K · 13 people listed
  • Consistency: 27 of 28 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2010 to 2014
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 7 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 4 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.

  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 50/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 38/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 4/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 28/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 4/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 38/100.