Music Youth Partnership Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
854220589
IRS 990 coverage
2022–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Wichita, KS, USA
Phone
9134245279
Rating
63
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Educational Services and Schools - Other

Reported finances

Revenue
$173,124
Expenses
$72,288
Assets
$119,336
Liabilities
$1,441

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Cathy Grant (Executive Director)
  • Paul Drace (Board President)
  • Joseph Sauer (Board Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Cathy Grant (Executive Director): $9,750 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To provide mentoring in both music and character development to at-risk youth. The organization accomplishes this by sending highly-accomplished music educators into the classroom to assist in music programming with school districts during the day. Additionally, the organization provides instruments to students without access to them in other ways. The organization acts as a safety net to keep youth involved in the arts which develops character and reduces risk outcomes.

What it reported doing in 2024

Classroom mentor program. These costs include the salaries for mentors to go into the classrooms, costs of instrument repair and acquisition, payroll taxes for the classroom mentors, and the cost of liability insurance. This program had four teachers in seven different schools for two hours a week.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% 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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 35
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 69
  • Sustainability: 68
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 23.2%; rating input score 23
  • Program expense ratio: 55.6%; rating input score 56
  • Fundraising efficiency: $7.06 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: 58.2%; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.65; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 13.5%; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 86.1% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 85.5% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 114.7% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 23.2% of revenue deployed · 55.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $40K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $10K · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 23 of 23 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2022 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 23/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 56/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 30/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 54/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 26/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 44/100.