Vermont Humanities Council

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
510187809
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Montpelier, VT, USA
Phone
8022622626
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,833,885
Expenses
$1,922,074
Assets
$3,219,605
Liabilities
$64,895

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

Leadership & pay

18 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CHRISTOPHER KAUFMAN ILSTRUP (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • CHRISTOPHER KAUFMAN ILSTRUP (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $157,706 total reported compensation
  • LUIS VIVANCO (DIRECTOR): $350 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Using the humanities, we connect with people across Vermont to create just, vibrant, and resilient communities, and to inspire a lifelong love of learning.

What it reported doing in 2025

Humanities based literacy programs - variety of programs to promote literacy in Vermont. Programs include "Vermont reads" a one book annual statewide reading, early literacy workshops for childcare providers, as well as family literacy trainings for parents. Humanitiescamps are weeklong summer day camps that aim to strengthen literacy skills and build positive peer groups and a love of reading. "connections" works on literacy with persons in and emerging from the correctional system.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 67% for direct work, and 33% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 70
  • Transparency & Controls: 56
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 37
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 76.6%; rating input score 77
  • Program expense ratio: 72.2%; rating input score 72
  • Fundraising efficiency: $7.71 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 36.3%; rating input score 36; 31st 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: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • 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: -4.8%; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.68; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 8.2%; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6% per year; rating input score 100; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.9% per year; rating input score 100; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.8% per year; rating input score 100; 35th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 76.6% of revenue deployed · 72.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 17 of 17 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $158K · 18 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 30 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2015 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 21 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 19 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.
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 36/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 27/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 19/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 59/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 42/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 53/100.