Career Transition for Dancers Inc C/o the Actors Fund

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
133488203
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2015
Forms available
Form 990 2015
Location
New York, NY, USA
Phone
2122217300
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Employment Procurement Assistance

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,444,635
Expenses
$1,870,248
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

25 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CYNTHIA FISCHER ESQ (PRESIDENT)
  • NANCY S MACMILLAN (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • ANKA K PALITZ (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • ALEXANDER J DUBE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • ALEXANDER J DUBE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $256,860 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The mission of career transition for dancers was to empower current and former professional dancers with the knowledge and skills necessary to define their career possibilities after dance, and to provide resources necessary to help make these possibilities a reality. Ctfd was dissolved and distributed its assets to the actors fund, a 501(c)(3) charitable organization. This dissolution and distribution of assets will enable ctfd to combine forces with a much larger charity which offers a full array of services to dancers.

What it reported doing in 2015

In 2015, ctfd provided dancer-clients with such vital programs andservices as one-on-one career counseling, group counseling, a toll free hot line (careerline) for long-distance counseling, regular special focus and support groups, national outreach projects, local outreach initiatives, career conversations, an all-day career conference "stepping into hope and change, and "the dancers' forum" plus a state-of-the-art website containing an innovative knowledgebase via our online programming. Scholarships are awarded to dancerclients for education, entrepreneurial endeavors and certification programs.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 96% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 63% for direct work, and 37% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 76
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 5
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 90.3%; rating input score 90
  • Program expense ratio: 69.5%; rating input score 70
  • Fundraising efficiency: $6.36 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 74th 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: 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: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -29.5%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 13.7%; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.6% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -2.4% per year; rating input score 0; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -75.1% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 90.3% of revenue deployed · 69.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 26 of 26 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $257K · 25 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 33 of 33 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2013 to 2015
  • 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 26/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 5/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 23/100.