Leesville Road High School Bands Club

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
561884114
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2024
Location
Raleigh, NC, USA
Phone
1998704250
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Parent/Teacher Group

Reported finances

Revenue
$429,269
Expenses
$423,441
Assets
$63,314
Liabilities
$30,811

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Allison Bullard (President volunteer)
  • Melanie Shoffner (Vice President - Fundraising volunteer)
  • Shelita Alston (Vice President - Intermediate Band volunteer)
  • Scott Hall (Vice President - Concert Band volunteer)
  • David Johndrow (Vice President - Symphonic Band volunteer)
  • Matthew Toczko (Vice President - Orchestra volunteer)

People named in this filing

  • Allison Bullard (President volunteer)
  • Melissa Proctor (Secretary volunteer)
  • Kelly Monce (Student Accounts Manager vounteer)

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

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

Overview

Mission

Through the Leesville Road High School the Leesville Road High School Bands Club promotes instrumental music education competition and achievement.

What it reported doing in 2024

Instrumental music participation music appreciation competition group and individual achievement are the mission of the school bands. Each school year the three bands and Orchestra have opportunities to travel to music competitions and cities in the United States that offer music education experiences and performance concerts. This program supports that mission.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 96% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Program spending has declined or grown slowly and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 88
  • Transparency & Controls: 75
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 32
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 98.6%; rating input score 99
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: 1.4%; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.15; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.49; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -0.1% per year; rating input score 0; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.2% per year; rating input score 100; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1.9% per year; rating input score 100; 33rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 98.6% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $423K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 37 of 41 current checks pass · 4 findings to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 9/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 43/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX AllOtherExpenses column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX ConferencesMeetings column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Insurance column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 11/100.