Cinematography for Actors Institute Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
992161365
IRS 990 coverage
2024–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2024
Location
Los Angeles, CA, USA
Phone
9294047296
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Professional Societies, Associations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$598,369
Expenses
$545,663
Assets
$138,396
Liabilities
$33,507

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • HAELEIGH ROYALL (CO-PRESIDENT/FOUNDER)
  • INDEANA UNDERHILL (CO-PRESIDENT/FOUNDER)

Highest reported compensation

  • HAELEIGH ROYALL (CO-PRESIDENT/FOUNDER): $19,260 total reported compensation
  • INDEANA UNDERHILL (CO-PRESIDENT/FOUNDER): $19,260 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To empower underrepresented and emerging filmmakers and actors by providing comprehensive education and community-building opportunities, fostering confidence, and expanding their networks within the film industry.

What it reported doing in 2024

We empower our community through a variety of innovative programs and events. In addition to our core team, we partner with industry leaders on both the vendor and creator sides to facilitate year-round workshops and educational initiatives. We produce industry-leading podcasts, including the cinematography for actors podcast and the indiewood podcast, providing valuable insights and industry knowledge on a weekly basis. We also run league of filmmakers, a website that offers both written and visual educational material on the bts of filmmaking.our cfa institute programs offer hands-on labs and year-round networking opportunities for both talent and crew. Our networking events, more affectionately called, community-building events foster the careers of emerging, talented filmmakers. Although based in los angeles, our reach extends far beyond the local community. We prioritize live streaming our events to a global audience and recording them for future access, ensuring our educational initiatives are accessible worldwide.additionally, we offer fiscal sponsorship, allowing filmmakers to receive tax-deductible donations and grants, facilitating the funding and realization of their creative projects.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 65% 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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 71
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 51
  • Sustainability: 40
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 68.5%; rating input score 69
  • Program expense ratio: 75.2%; rating input score 75
  • Fundraising efficiency: $36.04 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings

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; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 60%; rating input score 60; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: 8.8%; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.25; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.24; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 7.1%; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: 68.5% of revenue deployed · 75.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 5 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $410K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $19K · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 27 of 27 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 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.

  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 12/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 59/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 28/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 47/100.