Bryan Symphony Orchestra Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
237408038
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2011
Location
Cookeville, TN, USA
Phone
9315252633
Rating
61
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$267,939
Expenses
$193,211
Assets
$728,380
Liabilities
$20,010

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Rachel Wingo (Executive Director)
  • EJ Mackie (Past President)
  • Sidonie Sansom (President)
  • Charlie Decker (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Rachel Wingo (Executive Director): $7,577 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The Bryan Symphony Orchestra's mission is to engage, educate, and enrich our community through the performance of live music.

What it reported doing in 2024

This is an annual community event that is held at Dogwood Park. Patrons of the symphony underwrite the majority of the expenses with an endowment which was set up about a decade ago to be used for expenses for this event. For this event, the orchestra puton a free concert where attendees could watch in the park. Artists were invited to set up booths where they could display and sell their art. The estimated number of attendees is 2,500-3,000 individuals. We received a $5,500 Tennessee Arts Commission grant for this event.

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 100% 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 - 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 few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 56
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 63
  • Sustainability: 68
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 46.2%; rating input score 46
  • Program expense ratio: 59.6%; rating input score 60
  • Fundraising efficiency: $715.63 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • 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: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: 27.9%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.77; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 3.9%; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -2% per year; rating input score 0; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.5% per year; rating input score 100; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 11% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 46.2% of revenue deployed · 59.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 18 of 18 board members independent · 1 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $115K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $8K · 6 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 23 of 23 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 46/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 34/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 37/100.