Flying V Ltd

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
453158715
IRS 990 coverage
2019–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2018, Form 990-N 2014
Location
Bethesda, MD, USA
Phone
4103571837
Rating
66
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Theater

Reported finances

Revenue
$332,158
Expenses
$330,621
Assets
$16,725
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Alexandra Kelly Colburn (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Alexandra Kelly Colburn (Executive Director): $42,000 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Flying V is a performing arts organization that creates intersectional niche-based art to provide spaces of belonging to artists and audiences. We share and interpret modern mythologies that affirm individuals unique identities and their relationship to the world. Our work and how we create it is rooted in care for and accountability to those same individuals.

What it reported doing in 2025

Flying V brought cerebral science fiction to the stage this fall with the regional premiere of Doctor Moloch by Carla Milarch. Its 2029. A Silicon Valley tech genius finishes development on the first humanoid medical AI Doctor Moloch. Theres just one problem: the good doctor lacks empathy. Enter Serena Blaise an award-winning actress in the twilight of her career hired to teach Doctor Moloch how to be human. With a multi-million dollar contract on the line can she afford to fail?

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.
  • 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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 48
  • Transparency & Controls: 85
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 31
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 53.9%; rating input score 54
  • Program expense ratio: 54.2%; rating input score 54
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 15th 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • 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: 0.5%; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.05; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 12.7%; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -1.6% per year; rating input score 0; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9.9% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1.6% per year; rating input score 100; 29th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 53.9% of revenue deployed · 54.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $179K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $42K · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 39 of 42 current checks pass · 3 findings to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2019 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 54/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 54/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 37/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 4/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Insurance column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 25/100.