California Symphony Orchestra Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
943024038
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2022
Location
Walnut Creek, CA, USA
Phone
9252802490
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Symphony Orchestras

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,577,539
Expenses
$1,669,630
Assets
$330,718
Liabilities
$605,201

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

Leadership & pay

17 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Barbara Hodgkinson (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Lisa Dell (Exec Director): $181,000 total reported compensation
  • Sunshine Deffner (General Manager): $114,575 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Since its inception in 1986, the Symphony has included a work by an American composer and featured world-renowned guest artists on many of its programs.

What it reported doing in 2024

Educational ProgramsMusic education for the children and adults of this community is an integral part of the Symphonys mission, and several programs are offered: Sound Minds, inspired by the El Sistema program of Venezuela, serves at-risk elementary students with music lessons and academic enrichment, completely free of charge to students and families; the family concert and traveling instrument petting zoo; community fairs and events; panel discussions and lectures at local libraries; Fresh Look The Symphony Exposed, an adult education program for those new to classical music; and the Young American Composer-in-Residence Program, a three year residency for emerging young composers, which includes visits to local schools and music programs in addition to commissions and world premieres of new music every year.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 77% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The program-spending lines do not add up, so the filing cannot show reliably whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.
  • 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. 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: 56
  • Transparency & Controls: 74
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 16
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 54.4%; rating input score 54
  • Program expense ratio: 51.4%; rating input score 51
  • Fundraising efficiency: $65.45 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • 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: 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: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -5.8%; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.2; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.83; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 17.7%; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0.8% per year; rating input score 100; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.5% per year; rating input score 100; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.4% per year; rating input score 100; 49th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 54.4% of revenue deployed · 51.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $858K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $181K · 17 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 33 of 33 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 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: 2 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 54/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 51/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 23/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 9/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 2/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 18/100.