FrenetiCore

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
562288360
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2016
Forms available
Form 990 2016
Location
Houston, TX, USA
Phone
8326492096
Rating
60
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Performing Arts Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$149,982
Expenses
$158,187
Assets
$42,932
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Steven Patlan (Board President)
  • Adam Castaneda (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Adam Castaneda (Executive Director): $17,331 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

FrenetiCore is a non-profit organization that empowers and transforms communities through dance, theater and visual art. Frenetic Theater promotes the creation and presentation of new work in Houston by providing an accessible, affordable venue for the exhibition of performing and visual arts; offers educational outreach programs; and produces a yearly Fringe festival to promote cutting-edge theater, dance, film, music, and visual arts in Houston. FrenetiCore Dance maintains a company of artists who perform collaborative and innovative multi-media dance under the direction of Rebecca French.

What it reported doing in 2016

General Programming: FrenetiCore Dance Company: Under the artistic direction of Rebecca French, FrenetiCore maintains a dance company comprised of regular members and guest performers. Other Programs: Artist Board, Artist-in-Residence

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 68
  • Transparency & Controls: 85
  • Accountability: 21
  • Sustainability: 32
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 77.8%; rating input score 78
  • Program expense ratio: 73.8%; rating input score 74
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 10th 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: 0%; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • 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: -5.5%; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.27; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 11%; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 12.1% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -9.1% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -3.2% per year; rating input score 0; 24th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 77.8% of revenue deployed · 73.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 7 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $117K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $17K · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 33 of 34 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2012 to 2016
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 28/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 16/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 33/100.