Cannonball Miami Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
200286351
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2016
Forms available
Form 990 2016, Form 990-EZ 2009
Location
Miami, FL, USA
Phone
3059309300
Rating
65
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Nonmonetary Support N.E.C.*

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$115,112
Expenses
$187,322
Assets
$96,856
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Ashley Ford (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Ashley Ford (Executive Director): $43,925 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Cannonball is a non-profit, arts organization dedicated to supporting artists, innovative forms of cultural production, and education to advance critical discourse and understanding of contemporary art practice. Based in downtown miami, Florida, cannonball's artist-centric values are mirrored in its experimental programs, resources, and opportunities that respond to the needs of today's artists and reflect our efforts to better understand the nuances and textures of south Florida.

What it reported doing in 2016

Wavemaker grants provides direct support for artist-centric, artist-driven projects that have a profound impact on the critical, intellectual, and creative depth of miami's arts community. These projects are non-commercial, non-institutional, stimulate critical thinking and dialogue, and expose audiences to innovative artistic practices typically under-recognized by traditional venues. The very nature of these projects-unpredictable, courageous, and unencumbered by convention-spring from a cultural landscape that is endlessly diverse, nuanced, and equally defined by what is within and beyond its watery borders.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 98% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 70% of its reported program spending out as grants.

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: 45
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 22
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 59.3%; rating input score 59
  • Program expense ratio: 36.5%; rating input score 36
  • 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 79th 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; 63rd 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: -62.7%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.52; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 23.4%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -23.9% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -3.2% per year; rating input score 0; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -19.5% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 59.3% of revenue deployed · 36.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $68K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $44K · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 30 of 30 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2010 to 2016
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 59/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 36/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 4/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 27/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 16/100.