Acm Lifting Lives
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 841638671
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Nashville, TN, USA
- Phone
- 6155649630
- Rating
- 70
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Public Foundations
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,785,379
- Expenses
- $1,487,749
- Assets
- $6,767,280
- Liabilities
- $521,890
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
49 people listed
Highest reported compensation
- LYNDSAY CRUZ (EXECUTIVE DI): $226,425 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Acm lifting lives music dedicated to improving lives through the power of music. Acm lifting lives funds music health programs while also serving members of the music community who face unexpected hardships through its diane holcomb emergency relief fund. Acm lifting lives has funded national music therapy programs serving various mental and physical health organizations.
What it reported doing in 2024
Acm lifting lives is dedicated to improving lives through the power of music. Through partnerships with artists and strong ties in the music industry, acm lifting lives funds music health programs while also serving memebers of the music community who face unexpected hardships through its diane holcomb emergency relief fund. With generous donations and the support of artists and fans, acm lifting lives has funded national music therapy programs serving various mental and physical health organizations. Some of the recipients have included patients at children's hospitals and other healthcare facilities, recovering veterans, people with williams syndrome and individuals with mental illness. The acm lifting lives covid- 19 response fund was created in april 2020 in response to the global pandemic.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Other-operating. 61% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 61% of its reported program spending out as grants.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 58
- Transparency & Controls: 72
- Accountability: 82
- Sustainability: 66
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 62.8%; rating input score 63
- Program expense ratio: 69.2%; rating input score 69
- Fundraising efficiency: $1.56 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 99.8%; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 97.3%; rating input score 97; 26th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
- 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: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 16.7%; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.55; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.08; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 15.2%; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 5.9% per year; rating input score 100; 47th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 4.5% per year; rating input score 100; 41st percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 4.1% per year; rating input score 100; 35th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 62.8% of revenue deployed · 69.2% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 36 of 37 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $1M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $226K · 49 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 29 of 30 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 13 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 26 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 25 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 — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 4/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 22/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 46/100.