Golden Gate Performing Arts Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 942576101
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2013–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- San Francisco, CA, USA
- Phone
- 8006403810
- Rating
- 78
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Standard
- Sector
- Singing, Choral
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $4,466,997
- Expenses
- $5,136,007
- Assets
- $16,478,108
- Liabilities
- $5,655,817
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
23 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- CHRIS VERDUGO (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)
Highest reported compensation
- CHRIS VERDUGO (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER): $281,818 total reported compensation
- JACOB STENSBERG (ARTISTIC DIRECTOR): $247,180 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Golden nbsp; gate nbsp; performing nbsp; arts nbsp; inc nbsp; was nbsp; created nbsp; by nbsp; singers nbsp; and nbsp; dedicated nbsp; friends nbsp; of nbsp; the nbsp; san nbsp; francisco nbsp; gay nbsp; mens nbsp; chorus nbsp; to nbsp; ensure nbsp; the nbsp; financial nbsp; health nbsp; of nbsp; the nbsp; organization nbsp; golden nbsp; gate nbsp; performing nbsp; arts nbsp; inc nbsp; supports nbsp; the nbsp; chorus nbsp; so nbsp; it nbsp; can nbsp; achieve nbsp; its nbsp; mission nbsp; of nbsp; bringing nbsp; harmony nbsp; to nbsp; the nbsp; world
What it reported doing in 2024
Touring and outreach to serve as cultural ambassadors for san franciscos gay lesbian bisexual transgender and allied communities by performing at community events produced by other organizations including fundraisers for HIV/AIDS charities in ca
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.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 73
- Transparency & Controls: 81
- Accountability: 90
- Sustainability: 33
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 84.9%; rating input score 85
- Program expense ratio: 73.7%; rating input score 74
- Fundraising efficiency: $3.75 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 20th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
- Compensation committee: Pass
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- 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: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
- 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: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -15%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.21; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.34; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 10.3%; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 11.6% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 8.6% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 18.9% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 84.9% of revenue deployed · 73.7% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 21 of 21 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $3.8M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $282K · 23 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 28 of 31 current checks pass · 3 findings to review
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
- Filing history: 12 filing years from 2013 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 — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 11/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 9/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX OtherEmployeeBenefits column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX PensionPlanContributions 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 29/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 31/100.