Wichita Falls Alliance for Arts and Culture
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 473926205
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2019–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2015
- Location
- Wichita Falls, TX, USA
- Phone
- 9405004453
- Rating
- 80
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Arts, Cultural Organizations - Multipurpose
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $279,510
- Expenses
- $289,632
- Assets
- $52,903
- Liabilities
- $1,939
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
13 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Katie Parkey (President)
- Ann Arnold Ogden (Executive Director)
Highest reported compensation
- Ann Arnold Ogden (Executive Director): $69,536 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To provide leadership to support, promote and cultivate the arts in Wichita Falls and the surrounding area. To strengthen and elevate arts and culture including, but not limited to, visual and performing arts, literature, culinary arts, architecture and horticulture.
What it reported doing in 2025
Inspire participation, support, appreciation and leadership of quality arts and arts programs; make the arts more accessible for all persons in the region, from children and adults to art professionals; build bridges to connect neighborhoods, organizations, businesses and educational and governmental entities to promote and celebrate artistic and cultural diversity through shared experiences; nurture the arts through ongoing education and creative development; promote the arts through advocacy, publicity, funding and policy development for area arts and cultural organizations; and strenghten skills and infrastructure for arts organizations and artists to support high quality artistic and cultural experiences.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 69% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 73% for direct work, and 27% for grants.
The verdict
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Program spending has declined or grown slowly and revenue has declined or grown slowly.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 87
- Transparency & Controls: 85
- Accountability: 90
- Sustainability: 22
- Growth: 20
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 91.9%; rating input score 92
- Program expense ratio: 88.7%; rating input score 89
- Fundraising efficiency: $22.19 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 94.9%; rating input score 95; 57th 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: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
- 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: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -3.6%; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.18; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.04; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 24%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -1.1% per year; rating input score 0; 25th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -2.6% per year; rating input score 0; 13th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 3.3% per year; rating input score 100; 36th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 91.9% of revenue deployed · 88.7% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $257K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $70K · 13 people listed
- Consistency: 21 of 23 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
- Filing history: 7 filing years from 2019 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 12 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 11 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 — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 58/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 28/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 11/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 15/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 30/100.