Ballet San Jose Silicon Valley

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
942894849
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2013
Forms available
Form 990 2013
Location
San Jose, CA, USA
Phone
4082882820
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Arts, Culture, and Humanities

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,550,104
Expenses
$6,434,531
Assets
$308,716
Liabilities
$4,713,204

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2013. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • STEPHANIE ZIESEL (FORMER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • STEPHANIE ZIESEL (FORMER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $168,497 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2013. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The mission of ballet san jose is to provide our audiences with professional ballet performances that are produced to the highest artistic standard, which contribute to the cultural needs of the community, and that are accessible to the broadest possible audience. Ballet san jose silicon valley is committed to providing interactive arts education for children, youth and adults through its ballet school and outreach programs, focusing on both professional training and on general community enrichment.

What it reported doing in 2013

Artistic programming for 2013-2014 fiscal year began with a gala held in november to celebrate the newly appointed artistic director, jose manuel carreno. Performers from New York city ballet, american ballet theater, boston ballet and san francisco ballet danced in honor of their friend, jose carreno. The season began with nutcracker in december - 13 shows were held at the center for performing arts in san jose. The repertory season had three programs, neoclassical to now, which featured works by balanchine, elo and naharin. The second program, popular music transcendent dancing featured local premiers by perry, rhoden, nebrada and taylor. The third and final program featured carmen and in the upper room. Carmen saw a return to the stage by jose carreno and in the upper room finished off the program to standing ovations.

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 98% 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.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Revenue has declined or grown slowly and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 88
  • Transparency & Controls: 73
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 9
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 86.5%; rating input score 86
  • Fundraising efficiency: $7.81 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 20th 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 70th 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; 65th 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: -41.4%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.05; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 15.27; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.6%; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -12.6% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -30.8% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 86.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $5.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $168K · 13 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 33 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2009 to 2013
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 35/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 2/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 1/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization is not authorized to operate as a charity in California.