Arizona Philharmonic Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 834652802
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2021–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2020
- Location
- Prescott, AZ, USA
- Phone
- 8553216724
- Rating
- 73
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Standard
- Sector
- Symphony Orchestras
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $339,553
- Expenses
- $327,038
- Assets
- $12,961
- Liabilities
- $218
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
8 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- ABBY COFFEY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
- CHRISTENA CAVALETTO (PRESIDENT)
- BARBARA METZ (VICE-PRESIDENT)
Highest reported compensation
- ABBY COFFEY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $108,000 total reported compensation
- HENRY FLURRY (ARTISTIC DIRECTOR): $25,896 total reported compensation
- BARBARA METZ (VICE-PRESIDENT): $3,490 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Organizations primary exempt purpose: Arizona philharmonic (az phil) is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit whose mission is to embody artistic excellence and inspire the growth of symphonic music through diversity in genre, programming, collaboration, audiences, and musicians. Az phil seeks to touch its listeners hearts and minds to serve the needs and support the growth of the prescott areas performing arts scene, and to nurture community participation in the performing arts. Az phil is commited to producing quality, transformative concerts; paying musicians far wages; creating jobs; promoting living composers; offering creativity-based outreach to youth, underserved, veterans and seniors; and enabling attendance by all economic levels.
What it reported doing in 2024
Arizona Philharmonic remais committed to uplifting and supporting the development of a vibrand arts and culture scene in Prescott. Important contributions to the community include: Paying musicians fair wages, increasing the number of paying musician jobs within the community, developing meaningful partnerships/outreach programs with pusd and other local organizations, and maintaining programming to support concert attendance for seniors, veterans, and people from all economic levels.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 97% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 65
- Transparency & Controls: 100
- Accountability: 58
- Sustainability: 30
- Growth: 80
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 67.6%; rating input score 68
- Program expense ratio: 70.2%; rating input score 70
- Fundraising efficiency: $7.89 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- 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: 0 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 0
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: Fail
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 3.7%; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.04; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 21%; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 8.1% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 23.7% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -14.7% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 67.6% of revenue deployed · 70.2% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 0 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $230K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $108K · 8 people listed
- Consistency: 25 of 26 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
- Filing history: 4 filing years from 2021 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
- 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 8 of 8 not reported.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 33/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 3/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 48/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 18/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 41/100.