Museum League

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
630738501
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2013
Forms available
Form 990 2013
Location
Anniston, AL, USA
Phone
2562376766
Rating
55
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Reported finances

Revenue
$65,078
Expenses
$37,192
Assets
$111,120
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2013. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

17 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SARA RUTLEDGE (PRESIDENT)
  • NANCY LIPHAM (VICE PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • SARA RUTLEDGE (PRESIDENT)
  • NANCY LIPHAM (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • LINDA MANN (SECRETARY)

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 2013. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To provide support for the anniston museum of natural history

What it reported doing in 2013

Anniston museum of natural history received economic support to help defray the museum's cost & volunteers' help with museum events

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 77% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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

MIXED - 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: 32
  • Transparency & Controls: 83
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 70
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 27.9%; rating input score 28
  • Program expense ratio: 48.9%; rating input score 49
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 21st 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: 42.9%; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.99; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -7.6% per year; rating input score 0; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -1.2% per year; rating input score 0; 45th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 27.9% of revenue deployed · 48.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 17 of 17 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $18K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 17 people listed
  • Consistency: 14 of 15 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2010 to 2013
  • 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.

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

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 28/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 49/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 43/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.