International Conductors Guild Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
133297028
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2016–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2013, Form 990-EZ 2024
Location
Leesburg, VA, USA
Phone
2026434791
Rating
62
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Employment N.E.C.

Reported finances

Revenue
$147,727
Expenses
$192,694
Assets
$1,431

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

Leadership & pay

29 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Dr Julius P Williams (Past-PRESIDENT)
  • Mr Christopher Blair (PRESIDENT ELECT)
  • Dr Claire Fox Hillard (PRESIDENT)
  • Dr John Farrer (EMERITUS PAST PRESIDENT)
  • Ms Jan Wilson (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

People named in this filing

  • Dr Julius P Williams (Past-PRESIDENT)
  • Mr Christopher Blair (PRESIDENT ELECT)
  • Dr Claire Fox Hillard (PRESIDENT)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

The international conductors guild is dedicated to encouraging and promoting the highest standard in the art and profession of conducting.

What it reported doing in 2024

Annual International Conductors Guild Conference annual gathering of International Conductors Guild members, friends and colleagues representingconductors of all genres including symphony, ballet, opera, chorus, wind ensemble, military ensembles, and church musiciansProfessional presentations and research are presented, roundtable discussions on current topics of interest, a conductor workshop with a prominent master teacher, and one-on-one mentoring for those who request it.

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 - The filed numbers largely add up. 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: 53
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 4
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 58.1%; rating input score 58
  • Program expense ratio: 44.5%; rating input score 45

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -30.4%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.01; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 30.3%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 12.4% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -2.6% per year; rating input score 0; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -1.5% per year; rating input score 0; 23rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 58.1% of revenue deployed · 44.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 3 filed program accomplishments · $86K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 29 people listed
  • Consistency: 7 of 7 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2016 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 58/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 45/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 4/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 3/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 11/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.