Corryville Suzuki Project
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 311790747
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2011–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2024
- Location
- Cincinnati, OH, USA
- Phone
- 5132313523
- Rating
- 87
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Music Groups, Bands, Ensembles
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $42,563
- Expenses
- $44,489
- Assets
- $2,590
- Liabilities
- $390
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
2 people listed
People named in this filing
- Elizabeth Council-Phelan (Trustee)
- Vincent Phelan (Trustee)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Education of children in musical performance and theory
What it reported doing in 2024
To guide students in obtaining a high level of skill in the Suzuki Performance Method & one of their parents to teach themselves in an individually oriented program. To provide students with instruction in ensemble performance & music theory to provide students with instruction in chamber music performance. To engage students in a community outreach program providing performing & networking experience to provide live audience exposure to Suzuki Method of music education.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent revenue detail to tell how this nonprofit funds its work.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 88% 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
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Revenue has declined or grown slowly and expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 100
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 22
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -4.5%; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.06; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.15; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 59.9%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 5.7% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -1.3% per year; rating input score 0; 46th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 5% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $44K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 2 people listed
- Consistency: 9 of 9 current checks pass
- Schedules: 2 filed schedules
- Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2024
- 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.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 37/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 9/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 2/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 15/100.