Lagrange Symphony Orchestra Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
581902569
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2009
Location
Lagrange, GA, USA
Phone
7068820662
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Symphony Orchestras

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$552,771
Expenses
$493,225
Assets
$472,021
Liabilities
$226

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

Leadership & pay

23 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • BRANDON ADAMS (PRESIDENT)
  • CLARA KEITH BROWN (PRESIDENT-EL)

Highest reported compensation

  • RAYLENE CARTER (EXECUTIVE DI): $60,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The mission of the lagrange symphony orchestra, inc. Is: to enrich our community through music. The lagrange symphony orchestra fulfills this mission when it provides: cultural experience; educational programs; and performance opportunities. The board of directors shall adopt such goals and objectives as the board deems necessary or proper to accomplish this mission.

What it reported doing in 2024

The lagrange symphony youth orchestra(lsyo) - the youth orchestra is a performing group of student musicians from the troup county and surrounding areas. It was established in 1996 to foster the development of our local children's musical talents. Participants range in age from 7 - 18 and have typically been playing their instrument for two years or more. They perform in two major concerts per year and appear periodically with the lso.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 65% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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 - 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: 57
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 55
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 54.4%; rating input score 54
  • Program expense ratio: 59.2%; rating input score 59
  • Fundraising efficiency: $25.86 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 19th 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; 63rd 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: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 10.8%; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.96; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 12.2%; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -1.3% per year; rating input score 0; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.5% per year; rating input score 100; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3.9% per year; rating input score 100; 34th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 54.4% of revenue deployed · 59.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 22 of 22 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $292K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $60K · 23 people listed
  • Consistency: 26 of 27 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 54/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 59/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 41/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 30/100.