Enid Symphony Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
237297048
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2020
Location
Enid, OK, USA
Phone
5802379646
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Symphony Orchestras

Reported finances

Revenue
$523,660
Expenses
$354,262
Assets
$1,289,167
Liabilities
$6,171

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

Leadership & pay

17 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • VICTORIA CALDERONE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • LYNTEL MURPHY (PRESIDENT)
  • LAURA PRICE (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • JAMES CHRISTENSEN (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • SHARON JENKINS (ESA AUXILIARY VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • DOUGLAS M NEWELL (ARTISTIC DIRECTOR): $38,302 total reported compensation
  • VICTORIA CALDERONE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $35,769 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The mission of the enid symphony association (esa), is to maintain a symphonic ensemble which will enrich the quality of life in the greater enid area and serve as a cultural ambassador to the region and state . This is to be accomplished through the presentation of predominantly classical symphonic music to an ever-increasing audience representative of the diverse population of this constituent community.

What it reported doing in 2024

Concert series (including flipside the patti page story) the symphony hosts a diverse range of concerts throughout the year, featuring classical masterpieces, contemporary works, and performances by guest artists.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 73% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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.
  • 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 program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 54
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 91
  • Sustainability: 74
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 46.2%; rating input score 46
  • Program expense ratio: 68.2%; rating input score 68
  • Fundraising efficiency: $18.38 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 56; 56th 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: 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: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 32.3%; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.64; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 20.9%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -2.3% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.5% per year; rating input score 100; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -1.2% per year; rating input score 0; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 46.2% of revenue deployed · 68.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $241K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $38K · 17 people listed
  • Consistency: 28 of 28 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2010 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 46/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 56/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 14/100.