Aviary Camp Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
823228621
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2023
Forms available
Form 990 2023
Location
San Francisco, CA, USA
Phone
4155710155
Rating
47
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Recreational l Clubs

Reported finances

Revenue
$417,735
Expenses
$264,686
Assets
$463,457
Liabilities
$159,756

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

People named in this filing

  • Henry Wagner (Secretary)
  • John Kelley (Chairman)
  • Kenneth Stegmiller (Treasurer)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The sole activity of Aviary Camp, Inc. is to maintain a full men's chorus (plus conductors, librarians and accompanists) as required to participate in various activities of the Bohemian Club in San Francisco, California. The chorus exists to prepare for and perform in concerts and other entertainments which occur from time to time throughout each year for the private enjoyment and fellowship of its members and the other members of the Bohemian Club. The chorus does not give public performances and does not receive profit or any payment for its performances. None of the chorus members are paid. The chorus rehearses weekly in San Francisco, CA and gives various performances to members of the Club throughout the year.During a seventeen day period in July of each year the chorus participates in various choral and related entertainments that occur in the Bohemian Grove in Sonoma County, California, where the chorus maintains and operates a camp in which its members stay while attending thos

What it reported doing in 2023

Chorus and members expenses related to the performances

Operating model

Revenue model
Membership-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from membership dues.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 67
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: 36.6%; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.75; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.34; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -32% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.8% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 17.3% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $265K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 10 of 11 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 1 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2018 to 2023
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 56/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 15/100.