InterMusic SF

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
943298643
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
San Francisco, CA, USA
Phone
4158182825
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,178,556
Expenses
$954,070
Assets
$811,296
Liabilities
$168,778

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Katherine Bukstein (President)
  • Tom Stone (Vice-President)
  • Crystal Pascucci-Clifford (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Crystal Pascucci-Clifford (Executive Director): $116,875 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

InterMusic SF is dedicated to sustaining and nourishing the Bay Area creative environment by offering dynamic programming and vital resources for music creators and audience members.

What it reported doing in 2024

The Musical Grant Program (MGP) is a project-based grant program designed to encourage and promote the creation of small ensemble music. The grant provides financial support of Bay Area-based music creators and collaborators committed to the presentation and production of musical activities, such as live performances, composition commissions, professional recordings, and other collaborations. The grant is open to individuals, ensembles, and arts and culture organizations, and welcomes emerging and established music makers to apply. With support from the MGP, musicians continue to offer masterful and groundbreaking contributions to the cultural fabric that defines the Bay Area as a vibrant, creative ecosystem. Now in its 17th year, the MGP has awarded over $1.2MM in support of 396 projects.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 81% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 44% for direct work, and 56% for grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 72
  • Transparency & Controls: 89
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 54
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 67.9%; rating input score 68
  • Program expense ratio: 83.6%; rating input score 84
  • Fundraising efficiency: $21.44 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 98.9%; rating input score 99; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • 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: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: 19%; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.85; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.21; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 12.3%; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6.5% per year; rating input score 100; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.7% per year; rating input score 100; 46th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 67.9% of revenue deployed · 83.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $797K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $117K · 12 people listed
  • Consistency: 28 of 29 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 3 filed related-organization links
  • 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 38/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 31/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 30/100.